Loughridge v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Loughridge v. State

10 S.E.2d 764, 63 Ga. App. 263, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 55

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1940

Docket28419.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 10 S.E.2d 764 (Loughridge 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

Loughridge v. State, 10 S.E.2d 764, 63 Ga. App. 263, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 55 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIktvre, J.

1. “Presence of a person at a distillery when whisky is actually being made and his flight therefrom on seeing an officer approaching may, when not satisfactorily explained, authorize a jury to And him guilty of manufacturing whisky; and whether an attempted explanation of such presence and conduct is reasonable and satisfactory is a question for the jury.” Strickland v. State, 43 Ga. App. 578 (159 S. E. 756).

2. The evidence in the instant ease shows that the defendant and several other persons were at a distillery when whisky was actually being. made, and twenty quarts had already been “run,” and all of them fled when the officers approached. In the defendant’s statement to the jury' he denied being at the distillery, and introduced evidence tending to show an alibi. The. jury returned a verdict of guilty of manufacturing whisky. Their finding was approved by the trial judge, and this court, to which this case was carried after the motion for a new trial was overruled (which contained only the general grounds, the special grounds having been expressly abandoned), does not have authority to interfere where it appears that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict. Morgan v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., asid Gardner, J., concur. *264 Dalton & Brooke, for plaintiff in error. J. E. Paschall, solicitor-general, contra.

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

MacIktvre, J.

1. “Presence of a person at a distillery when whisky is actually being made and his flight therefrom on seeing an officer approaching may, when not satisfactorily explained, authorize a jury to And him guilty of manufacturing whisky; and whether an attempted explanation of such presence and conduct is reasonable and satisfactory is a question for the jury.” Strickland v. State, 43 Ga. App. 578 (159 S. E. 756).

2. The evidence in the instant ease shows that the defendant and several other persons were at a distillery when whisky was actually being. made, and twenty quarts had already been “run,” and all of them fled when the officers approached. In the defendant’s statement to the jury' he denied being at the distillery, and introduced evidence tending to show an alibi. The. jury returned a verdict of guilty of manufacturing whisky. Their finding was approved by the trial judge, and this court, to which this case was carried after the motion for a new trial was overruled (which contained only the general grounds, the special grounds having been expressly abandoned), does not have authority to interfere where it appears that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict. Morgan v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., asid Gardner, J., concur. *264 Dalton & Brooke, for plaintiff in error. J. E. Paschall, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 764, 63 Ga. App. 263, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loughridge-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack