Leath v. Rosser

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Leath v. Rosser

183 S.E. 839, 52 Ga. App. 587, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 191

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1936

Docket24655

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 S.E. 839 (Leath v. Rosser) 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

Leath v. Rosser, 183 S.E. 839, 52 Ga. App. 587, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 191 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The statute which provides for the disposition of apparatus or appliances used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors or beverages should be given a strict interpretation. Where the statute declares that such articles are contraband, and that no one has any property right therein, and that when such apparatus or appliances- so used or about to be so used are found or discovered by certain officers of this State they shall be “summarily destroyed and rendered useless by him without any formal order of the court,” and there is no statutory provision for condemnation and confiscation of such apparatus or appliances and a sale thereof after proceedings instituted in court, the court has no jurisdiction to condemn such apparatus or appliances and order a sale thereof upon the ground that they were used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors.

2. This being a suit instituted under the act of 1917 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 16; 11 Park’s Code Supp. 1922, § 448(oooo)), to condemn and sell a wagon, mules, and harness on the ground that they constituted apparatus or appliances used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic beverages, and that they were engaged in conveying such liquors along the public roads or private ways of this State, and property was not subject to condemnation and sale on the ground that it may have been used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors. Evidence that the team which consisted of the mules and wagon was found hitched at a place where a still producing alcoholic liquor was in operation, and that there was some alcoholic liquor in the wagon, is insufficient to authorize the inference that the team was used in conveying such liquors along a public road or private way of this State. Thompson v. State, 52 Ga. App. 355.

3. The above rulings being controlling, it is unnecessary to pass on the assignments of error in exceptions to the charge of the court to the jury, or on refusal to charge.

[588]*588Decided February 8, 1936. Fariss & Langford, for plaintiff in error. J. Ralph Rosser, contra.

4. The judgment condemning the property was contrary to law and without evidence to support it, and the court, erred in not granting a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The statute which provides for the disposition of apparatus or appliances used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors or beverages should be given a strict interpretation. Where the statute declares that such articles are contraband, and that no one has any property right therein, and that when such apparatus or appliances- so used or about to be so used are found or discovered by certain officers of this State they shall be “summarily destroyed and rendered useless by him without any formal order of the court,” and there is no statutory provision for condemnation and confiscation of such apparatus or appliances and a sale thereof after proceedings instituted in court, the court has no jurisdiction to condemn such apparatus or appliances and order a sale thereof upon the ground that they were used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors.

2. This being a suit instituted under the act of 1917 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 16; 11 Park’s Code Supp. 1922, § 448(oooo)), to condemn and sell a wagon, mules, and harness on the ground that they constituted apparatus or appliances used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic beverages, and that they were engaged in conveying such liquors along the public roads or private ways of this State, and property was not subject to condemnation and sale on the ground that it may have been used for the purpose of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors. Evidence that the team which consisted of the mules and wagon was found hitched at a place where a still producing alcoholic liquor was in operation, and that there was some alcoholic liquor in the wagon, is insufficient to authorize the inference that the team was used in conveying such liquors along a public road or private way of this State. Thompson v. State, 52 Ga. App. 355.

3. The above rulings being controlling, it is unnecessary to pass on the assignments of error in exceptions to the charge of the court to the jury, or on refusal to charge.

[588]*588Decided February 8, 1936. Fariss & Langford, for plaintiff in error. J. Ralph Rosser, contra.

4. The judgment condemning the property was contrary to law and without evidence to support it, and the court, erred in not granting a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E. 839, 52 Ga. App. 587, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leath-v-rosser-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack