Hatchett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hatchett v. State

128 S.E. 687, 34 Ga. App. 134, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 72

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 9, 1925

Docket16372

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 687 (Hatchett 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

Hatchett v. State, 128 S.E. 687, 34 Ga. App. 134, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bmodworti-i, J.

1. Under the facts as shown by the record, this court can not say that the judge who tried this case abused his discretion in refusing the continuance.

2. The indictment contained two counts, the first charging the defendant with selling, and the second with possessing, intoxicating liquor. The evidence showed all the essentials of a sale,—an identification of the thing sold^ an agreement as to the price to be paid, and consent of parties. Civil Code (1910), § 4106. The liquor was delivered to the purchasers, and the fact that it was not then and there paid for does not relieve the accused. Finch v. State, 6 Ga. App. 338 (1) (64 S. E. 1007) ; Cook v. State, 124 Ga. 653 (2), 654 (2) (53 S. E. 104) ; Lupo [135]*135v. State, 118 Ga. 759 (45 S. E. 602). The evidence authorized a conviction on the first count, and the accused admitted the possession of the liquor; therefore the jury properly returned a verdict against the accused on both counts.

Decided June 9, 1925. E. 0. Johnson Jr., for plaintiff in error. E. M. Owen, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, 6. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bmodworti-i, J.

1. Under the facts as shown by the record, this court can not say that the judge who tried this case abused his discretion in refusing the continuance.

2. The indictment contained two counts, the first charging the defendant with selling, and the second with possessing, intoxicating liquor. The evidence showed all the essentials of a sale,—an identification of the thing sold^ an agreement as to the price to be paid, and consent of parties. Civil Code (1910), § 4106. The liquor was delivered to the purchasers, and the fact that it was not then and there paid for does not relieve the accused. Finch v. State, 6 Ga. App. 338 (1) (64 S. E. 1007) ; Cook v. State, 124 Ga. 653 (2), 654 (2) (53 S. E. 104) ; Lupo [135]*135v. State, 118 Ga. 759 (45 S. E. 602). The evidence authorized a conviction on the first count, and the accused admitted the possession of the liquor; therefore the jury properly returned a verdict against the accused on both counts.

Decided June 9, 1925. E. 0. Johnson Jr., for plaintiff in error. E. M. Owen, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, 6. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 687, 34 Ga. App. 134, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatchett-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack