Howell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howell v. State

20 S.E.2d 89, 67 Ga. App. 299, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 389

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1942

Docket29398.

StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.E.2d 89 (Howell 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

Howell v. State, 20 S.E.2d 89, 67 Ga. App. 299, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

1. Evidence that the defendant was seen by the officers, about dark, standing over a sack containing five gallons of non-taxed whisky, at a spot on a vacant lot not shown to have been his property, at which spot the whisky had been buried and then unearthed, and that the defendant, though unrecognized while standing over the whisky, was recognized as he left the whisky and passed the officers, was sufficient, when taken with his voluntary statement to the officers while later under their *300 arrest, to prove that the whisky was his. The jury was authorized so to find.

Decided April 10, 1942. Rehearing denied April 25, 1942. Franlc A. Boughman, for plaintiff in error. Bond Almand, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, Bur-wood T. Pye, contra.

2. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

1. Evidence that the defendant was seen by the officers, about dark, standing over a sack containing five gallons of non-taxed whisky, at a spot on a vacant lot not shown to have been his property, at which spot the whisky had been buried and then unearthed, and that the defendant, though unrecognized while standing over the whisky, was recognized as he left the whisky and passed the officers, was sufficient, when taken with his voluntary statement to the officers while later under their *300 arrest, to prove that the whisky was his. The jury was authorized so to find.

Decided April 10, 1942. Rehearing denied April 25, 1942. Franlc A. Boughman, for plaintiff in error. Bond Almand, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, Bur-wood T. Pye, contra.

2. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.E.2d 89, 67 Ga. App. 299, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-state-gactapp-1942.