Lacount v. State

104 S.E. 920, 25 Ga. App. 767, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 202
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 9, 1920
Docket11778
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 920 (Lacount 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
Lacount v. State, 104 S.E. 920, 25 Ga. App. 767, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 202 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment charged that the accused did “have, receive, possess, and control certain alcoholic liquors,” etc. There was a verdict of guilty. The evidence for the State shows: that “ a batch of jugs and bottles ” was found in the woods near the residence of the accused; that under a shelter was found “a sugar barrel full of bottles and jugs, some pint and quart bottles, and gallon jugs; this was at Lacount’s house, that is, the shelter that we found them under was at his house and on the premises where he lived;” that in his barn and about ten steps from his residence were found some empty kegs; that from his barn a trail led to where was found a keg “that had about fifteen gallons of whisky in it;” and that in his back yard were found a jug and two kegs that recently contained whisky, and “one with a tablespoonful of whisky in it.” The motion for a new trial [768]*768contained the usual general grounds only. It is settled by repeated rulings of this court that “whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga. App. 24 (90 S. E. 732). See also Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited. There is some evidence to support the finding of the jury in this case. In addition this court is committed to the proposition that under the present prohibition laws of the State the accused would be guilty, under this indictment, if he knowingly had in his possession any quantity of intoxicating liquor, “even a spoonful.” See Biddy v. State, 22 Ga. App. 784 (97 S. E. 196).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Robinson v. State
167 S.E.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Cline v. State
117 S.E.2d 887 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Herbert v. State
164 S.E. 452 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Hall v. State
133 S.E. 285 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
State v. Williams
243 P. 563 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Tate v. State
116 S.E. 541 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Redd v. State
111 S.E. 685 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Frazier v. State
107 S.E. 896 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 S.E. 920, 25 Ga. App. 767, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacount-v-state-gactapp-1920.