Loh v. Howard

81 S.E. 198, 141 Ga. 509, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 23

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. The evidence in this case is conflicting, and the court below did not abuse its discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from maintaining a “blind tiger” and selling intoxicating beers and intoxicating liquors at the place.

2. Grounds of exception not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error will not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.