Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Holt v. State

Holt v. State

66 S.E. 279, 7 Ga. App. 77, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 542
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 4, 1909·No. 2146·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

1.' The evidence fully authorized the verdict.

2. There is a difference between the indirect commission of a crime and indirect proof of a crime. In this case there was direct proof that the defendant made an indirect sale of intoxicating liquor, i. e. that he allowed the prospective purchaser to take the key and go into a trunk, get the liquor, and leave the money on a table in his presence; therefore it was not a case requiring a charge on the effect of indirect or circumstantial evidence.

3. Taken as a whole, the charge was very fair, and not subject to the criticisms directed against it by the exceptions appearing in the record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Holt v. State, 66 S.E. 279, 7 Ga. App. 77, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 542 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

66 S.E. 279 (Holt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Locklear v. State
76 Ga. App. 137 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Thomas v. State
16 S.E.2d 447 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Walker v. State
11 S.E.2d 45 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Lee v. State
194 S.E. 846 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Morris v. State
179 S.E. 822 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Carroll v. State
171 S.E. 574 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Weatherby v. State
78 S.E. 1014 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Young v. State
76 S.E. 753 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Ragan v. State
72 S.E. 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Braswell v. State
72 S.E. 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Benton v. State
71 S.E. 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)