Lamb v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lamb v. State

136 S.E. 331, 36 Ga. App. 306, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 43

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17773

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 331 (Lamb 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

Lamb v. State, 136 S.E. 331, 36 Ga. App. 306, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Lamb was convicted of violation of the prohibition statute. The State proved that in his horse lot, in a dugout covered over by a locked plank door, was found, freshly buried in the ground, inore than sixty gallons of “liquor.” The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he had used this place for storing “liquor,” but had not so used it for a long time, — not since they found ninety gallons of “liquor” there had he so used it; that some one else had stored it there. There was no denial that the storage place was owned and controlled by the defendant. The contention that there was no proof that the “liquor,” contained in glass jars and kegs, was intoxicating is controlled by Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 118 (86 S. E. 283), and cases cited. There was ample evidence to authorize conviction; and when the charge of the court is read in its entirety, there is no merit in the assign[307]*307ment of error upon the excerpt from the charge. The assignment .of error upon the court’s refusal to continue the case is also without merit. The defendant has had a fair trial, and for no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion .fot a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

Lamb was convicted of violation of the prohibition statute. The State proved that in his horse lot, in a dugout covered over by a locked plank door, was found, freshly buried in the ground, inore than sixty gallons of “liquor.” The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he had used this place for storing “liquor,” but had not so used it for a long time, — not since they found ninety gallons of “liquor” there had he so used it; that some one else had stored it there. There was no denial that the storage place was owned and controlled by the defendant. The contention that there was no proof that the “liquor,” contained in glass jars and kegs, was intoxicating is controlled by Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 118 (86 S. E. 283), and cases cited. There was ample evidence to authorize conviction; and when the charge of the court is read in its entirety, there is no merit in the assign[307]*307ment of error upon the excerpt from the charge. The assignment .of error upon the court’s refusal to continue the case is also without merit. The defendant has had a fair trial, and for no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion .fot a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 331, 36 Ga. App. 306, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack