Gambol v. State
This text of 66 S.E.2d 197 (Gambol v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Undisputed evidence to the effect that the defendant is the proprietor of a dance hall and soft drink establishment, that no liquor was found within such establishment except in the exclusive possession of a third person, and that four bottles were found in the grass and on the steps outside the building, that there were at least 25 customers present at the time all of whom had access to the places where the liquor was found equal to that of the defendant, is insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the defendant on a charge of possessing intoxicating liquors. Rhoddenberry v. State, 50 Ga. App. 378 (178 S. E. 170); Smith v. State, 150 Ga. 755 (2) (105 S. E. 364); Kennedy v. State, 23 Ga. App. 141 (97 S. E. 894); Wright v. State, 25 Ga. App. 176 (102 S. E. 834); Reese v. State, 42 Ga. App. 184 (155 S. E. 373); Roper v. State, 67 Ga. App. 272 (19 S. E. 2d, 746); Summerville v. State, 68 Ga. App. 13 (21 S. E. 2d, 909); [294]*294Wright v. State, 48 Ga. App. 302 (172 S. E. 687). It follows that the verdict was unauthorized and the superior court erred in overruling the certiorari.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 S.E.2d 197, 84 Ga. App. 293, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gambol-v-state-gactapp-1951.