Kinnebrew v. City of Greensboro

83 S.E. 148, 15 Ga. App. 344, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 102
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 20, 1914·No. 5840·Published

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

Evidence that the defendant sold intoxicating liquor, when

the nature and the duration of his possession of the liquor is not satisfactorily explained, may authorize the inference that the liquor was kept by him for the purpose of sale. In a trial in a municipal court for the violation of an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liqüor on hand for illegal sale, the sufficiency of the explanation is addressed to that court. Upon the evidence in the present record, the judge of the superior court did not. err in overruling the certiorari. Rooney v. Augusta, 117 Ga. 709 (45 S. E. 72) ; Robinson v. Americas, 121 Ga. 182 (48 S. E. 924); Coggins v. Griffin, 5 Ga. App. 1 (62 S. E. 659) ; Sawyer v. Blakely, 2 Ga. App. 159 (58 S. E. 399) ; Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198 (47 S. E. 560). Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Kinnebrew v. City of Greensboro, 83 S.E. 148, 15 Ga. App. 344, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

83 S.E. 148 (Kinnebrew v. City of Greensboro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rooney v. City Council
45 S.E. 72 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Reese v. City of Newnan
47 S.E. 560 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Robinson v. Mayor of Americus
48 S.E. 924 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Sawyer v. City of Blakely
58 S.E. 399 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Coggins v. City of Griffin
62 S.E. 659 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)