Kent v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kent v. State

82 S.E. 802, 15 Ga. App. 182, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 52

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1914

Docket5719

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 802 (Kent 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

Kent v. State, 82 S.E. 802, 15 Ga. App. 182, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. No error of law is complained of, and the sole question is whether a certain beverage sold by the defendant was 'intoxicating. The evidence was in sharp conflict, and that introduced for the State was somewhat unsatisfactory, but the jury decided the issue against the accused, and this court can not set aside their finding, there being evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

2. The evidence that other persons sold non-intoxicating cider of the same name or brand as that dispensed by the accused does not exclude the hypothesis that the particular “cider” sold to the witnesses for the State, on the occasion referred to in their testimony, was radically different, or the further hypothesis that additional alcoholic ingredients may have been supplied. Eour witnesses testified that the beverage in question stimulated them, and that if they had consumed a sufficient quantity they believed it would have intoxicated them. One said he thought that as much as a quart would make a person drunk, and one of them testified absolutely that “a quart of the cider would make any one drunk.” See Askew v. State, 4 Ga. App. 446 (61 S. E. 737); Wilcox v. State, 8 Ga. App. 536 (69 S. E. 1086).

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Wade, J.

1. No error of law is complained of, and the sole question is whether a certain beverage sold by the defendant was 'intoxicating. The evidence was in sharp conflict, and that introduced for the State was somewhat unsatisfactory, but the jury decided the issue against the accused, and this court can not set aside their finding, there being evidence sufficient to support the verdict.

2. The evidence that other persons sold non-intoxicating cider of the same name or brand as that dispensed by the accused does not exclude the hypothesis that the particular “cider” sold to the witnesses for the State, on the occasion referred to in their testimony, was radically different, or the further hypothesis that additional alcoholic ingredients may have been supplied. Eour witnesses testified that the beverage in question stimulated them, and that if they had consumed a sufficient quantity they believed it would have intoxicated them. One said he thought that as much as a quart would make a person drunk, and one of them testified absolutely that “a quart of the cider would make any one drunk.” See Askew v. State, 4 Ga. App. 446 (61 S. E. 737); Wilcox v. State, 8 Ga. App. 536 (69 S. E. 1086).

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 802, 15 Ga. App. 182, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-state-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack