Guthrie v. State

139 S.E. 157, 37 Ga. App. 151, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 534
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 26, 1927
Docket18232
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 157 (Guthrie 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
Guthrie v. State, 139 S.E. 157, 37 Ga. App. 151, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 534 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinions

Bloodworth, J.

1. This court will not say that the judge of the trial court abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance of the case.

2. For no reason alleged did the court err in allowing the solicitor-general [152]*152to exhibit to each of two witnesses certain bottles “supposed to contain liquor that was alleged to have been purchased from the defendant,” and on each of which was pasted certain written memoranda.

Decided July 26, 1927. Rehearing denied August 12, 1927. I. J. Bussell, H. IF. Wilson, D. M. Parker, for plaintiff in error. IF. G. Parker, solicitor, contra.

3. Certain bottles witli figures and. words pasted thereon as follows, “11-3-26 Guthrie. M. C. Sapp.” and “-11-3-26 Bought from H. S. Guthrie Paid $5.00 for one half gallon. M. C. Sapp,” were admitted in evidence. This is alleged to be error because “of the written statements thereon which were placed on them out of the presence of the defendant, and because they were, prejudicial to the defendant.” These bottles were positively identified as those containing whisky bought of the accused, and witness Sapp swore that lie put the labels on them. The bottles and their contents were admissible, and there was no motion to have' the labels removed before the bottles were sent to the jury. Witness Sapp had testified to everything shown bj' the labels. Neither the bottles nor the labels thereon were inadmissible for the .reasons above assigned. ;

4. None of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the special grounds of the motion- show reversible error.

5. The verdict was demanded by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Railey v. State
119 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Hodges v. State
158 S.E. 611 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 S.E. 157, 37 Ga. App. 151, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guthrie-v-state-gactapp-1927.