Guilford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Guilford v. State

76 S.E. 103, 11 Ga. App. 768, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 169

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 22, 1912

Docket4404

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E. 103 (Guilford 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.

Bluebook

Guilford v. State, 76 S.E. 103, 11 Ga. App. 768, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 169 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The middleman in an illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, to be free from criminal responsibility, must act solely as agent for the buyer. If he induces the transaction, or acts as agent for both parties, or if he has a profit in the transaction, he is guilty of violating the law. Plummer v. State, 8 Ga. App. 379 (69 S. E. 28); Sessions v. State, 6 Ga. App. 336 (64 S. E. 1101); Cheatwood v. Buchanan, 9 Ga. App. 828 (72 S.E. 284) ; Highsmith v. Waycross, 7 Ga. App. 611 (67 S. E. 677).

2. The evidence clearly showing that the accused was given a dollar for the purpose of buying whisky, and that, in compliance with the request of the person who gave him the dollar, he bought whisky from a third person and paid seventy-five cents for it, but retained for himself twenty-five cents, he was interested in the sale; and this evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

3. There being positive and direct evidence that the accused made a profit from an illegal sale of the whisky, there was no error in the refusal of the court to instruct the jury as to the law of circumstantial evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill, C. J.

1. The middleman in an illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, to be free from criminal responsibility, must act solely as agent for the buyer. If he induces the transaction, or acts as agent for both parties, or if he has a profit in the transaction, he is guilty of violating the law. Plummer v. State, 8 Ga. App. 379 (69 S. E. 28); Sessions v. State, 6 Ga. App. 336 (64 S. E. 1101); Cheatwood v. Buchanan, 9 Ga. App. 828 (72 S.E. 284) ; Highsmith v. Waycross, 7 Ga. App. 611 (67 S. E. 677).

2. The evidence clearly showing that the accused was given a dollar for the purpose of buying whisky, and that, in compliance with the request of the person who gave him the dollar, he bought whisky from a third person and paid seventy-five cents for it, but retained for himself twenty-five cents, he was interested in the sale; and this evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

3. There being positive and direct evidence that the accused made a profit from an illegal sale of the whisky, there was no error in the refusal of the court to instruct the jury as to the law of circumstantial evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 103, 11 Ga. App. 768, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilford-v-state-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack