Holt v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holt v. State

66 S.E. 279, 7 Ga. App. 77, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 542

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1909

Docket2146

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 279 (Holt 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

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

Pincite

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