Herrington v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Herrington v. State

189 S.E. 711, 55 Ga. App. 240, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 59

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1937

Docket25967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 711 (Herrington 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

Herrington v. State, 189 S.E. 711, 55 Ga. App. 240, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. Testimony that the defendant “picked up a half-gallon boiler of liquor and started pouring it out,” and that some of the liquid fell on the floor and burned when ignited, and that it smelled like liquor, together with other evidence, supported the conviction of the defendant under an accusation charging him with possessing whisky. In this connection see Carswell v. State, 7 Ga. App. 198 (66 S. E. 488); Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 118 (86 S. E. 283); Brooks v. State, 19 Ga. App. 3, 8 (90 S. E. 989); Sammons v. State, 53 Ga. App. 369 (185 S. E. 923).

2. The court did not err in allowing a witness to testify that the defendant “picked up a half-gallon boiler of liquor,” over the objection that such testimony “was a conclusion of the witness.” See authorities cited above.

3. The court did not commit reversible error in allowing a witness to testify that the defendant was saturated with shine, over the objection that it is not a violation of law to possess shime, and courts do not take [241]*241judicial cognizance that shine is intoxicating: the witness having also testified that the liquid was “shine liquor,” and the previous witness having testified several times that it was “liquor.”

Decided January 12, 1937. Rehearing denied February 12, 1937. B. L. LeSueur, for plaintiff in error. George B. Bilis, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., eonour.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. Testimony that the defendant “picked up a half-gallon boiler of liquor and started pouring it out,” and that some of the liquid fell on the floor and burned when ignited, and that it smelled like liquor, together with other evidence, supported the conviction of the defendant under an accusation charging him with possessing whisky. In this connection see Carswell v. State, 7 Ga. App. 198 (66 S. E. 488); Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 118 (86 S. E. 283); Brooks v. State, 19 Ga. App. 3, 8 (90 S. E. 989); Sammons v. State, 53 Ga. App. 369 (185 S. E. 923).

2. The court did not err in allowing a witness to testify that the defendant “picked up a half-gallon boiler of liquor,” over the objection that such testimony “was a conclusion of the witness.” See authorities cited above.

3. The court did not commit reversible error in allowing a witness to testify that the defendant was saturated with shine, over the objection that it is not a violation of law to possess shime, and courts do not take [241]*241judicial cognizance that shine is intoxicating: the witness having also testified that the liquid was “shine liquor,” and the previous witness having testified several times that it was “liquor.”

Decided January 12, 1937. Rehearing denied February 12, 1937. B. L. LeSueur, for plaintiff in error. George B. Bilis, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., eonour.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 711, 55 Ga. App. 240, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrington-v-state-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack