Lewis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lewis v. State

87 S.E. 709, 17 Ga. App. 445, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1003

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1916

Docket6499

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 709 (Lewis 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

Lewis v. State, 87 S.E. 709, 17 Ga. App. 445, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1003 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The special presentment charged that the accused did “sell and barter, for a valuable consideration, rum, gin, cider, alcoholic, spirituous, malt, and intoxicating liquors, and intoxicating bitters, and other drinks, which if drunk to excess, will produce intoxication, contrary to the laws,” etc. While “cider,” eo nomine, is not presumptively an intoxicating liquor, and the intoxicating quality of cider alleged to have been sold in violation of law must be proved, still the subsequent conjunctive statement of the present accusation (as part of the charge as a whole), that the defendant sold other drinks which if drunk to excess would produce intoxication, involves and impliedly includes a charge that the “cider” which the accused was alleged to have sold was an intoxicating liquor; and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The special presentment charged that the accused did “sell and barter, for a valuable consideration, rum, gin, cider, alcoholic, spirituous, malt, and intoxicating liquors, and intoxicating bitters, and other drinks, which if drunk to excess, will produce intoxication, contrary to the laws,” etc. While “cider,” eo nomine, is not presumptively an intoxicating liquor, and the intoxicating quality of cider alleged to have been sold in violation of law must be proved, still the subsequent conjunctive statement of the present accusation (as part of the charge as a whole), that the defendant sold other drinks which if drunk to excess would produce intoxication, involves and impliedly includes a charge that the “cider” which the accused was alleged to have sold was an intoxicating liquor; and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 709, 17 Ga. App. 445, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack