Lumpkin v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lumpkin v. City of Atlanta

76 S.E. 1059, 12 Ga. App. 111, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 451

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1913

Docket4177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 1059 (Lumpkin v. City of Atlanta) 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

Lumpkin v. City of Atlanta, 76 S.E. 1059, 12 Ga. App. 111, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

If the evidence points to the defendant’s guilt of any offense, it is that of selling intoxicating liquor, of which the recorder’s court has no jurisdiction, because the State courts alone .have cognizance of this offense. Moran v. Atlanta, 102 Ga. 840 (30 S. E. 298). If there were circumstances indicating that the accused had been in possession or control of the liquor in question, the evidence of an illegal sale might be sufficient to support the inference that he was keeping it for sale in violation of a municipal ordinance; but there being no such evidence in the record, and, on the contrary, the only testimony upon that branch ■of the case being to the effect that the whisky was in fact obtained from one other than the defendant, upon the street and not upon the premises of the defendant, the evidence is insufficient to authorize conviction; and the judge of the superior court erred in overruling the •certiorari. The slight circumstance which connected the accused with the alleged sale (and in this case the conclusion that the liquor was kept for sale must depend on proof of a sale) did not exclude every •other reasonable hypothesis than that the one pint of whisky which was found, partly consumed, in the defendant’s house, was kept for the purpose of illegal sale. . Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

If the evidence points to the defendant’s guilt of any offense, it is that of selling intoxicating liquor, of which the recorder’s court has no jurisdiction, because the State courts alone .have cognizance of this offense. Moran v. Atlanta, 102 Ga. 840 (30 S. E. 298). If there were circumstances indicating that the accused had been in possession or control of the liquor in question, the evidence of an illegal sale might be sufficient to support the inference that he was keeping it for sale in violation of a municipal ordinance; but there being no such evidence in the record, and, on the contrary, the only testimony upon that branch ■of the case being to the effect that the whisky was in fact obtained from one other than the defendant, upon the street and not upon the premises of the defendant, the evidence is insufficient to authorize conviction; and the judge of the superior court erred in overruling the •certiorari. The slight circumstance which connected the accused with the alleged sale (and in this case the conclusion that the liquor was kept for sale must depend on proof of a sale) did not exclude every •other reasonable hypothesis than that the one pint of whisky which was found, partly consumed, in the defendant’s house, was kept for the purpose of illegal sale. . Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 1059, 12 Ga. App. 111, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumpkin-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack