Lupo v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lupo v. State

45 S.E. 602, 118 Ga. 759, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 682

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 24, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 S.E. 602 (Lupo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lupo v. State, 45 S.E. 602, 118 Ga. 759, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 682 (Ga. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Lamar, J.

On his trial for selling liquor without a license, the defendant claimed that there had been no sale but a bona fide loan. Huby v. State, 111 Ga. 842. The witness for the State, however, testified that he bought from the defendant a half pint of whisky for twenty-five cents, to be paid when they returned to town. Later in the day the defendant said that he “ did not want the money, but that I could, pay back the liquor. We canceled the trade, and I was to pay him the liquor back.” The verdict settles the conflict, and establishes that the original agreement was a sale of liquor on credit. ' The seller having no license, the statute was violated, and the subsequent agreement to cancel the trade and [760]*760return the whisky did not free the defendant from liability for the previous criminal act. Penal Code, §431. Compare Lowe v. State, 111 Ga. 650.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lamar, J.

On his trial for selling liquor without a license, the defendant claimed that there had been no sale but a bona fide loan. Huby v. State, 111 Ga. 842. The witness for the State, however, testified that he bought from the defendant a half pint of whisky for twenty-five cents, to be paid when they returned to town. Later in the day the defendant said that he “ did not want the money, but that I could, pay back the liquor. We canceled the trade, and I was to pay him the liquor back.” The verdict settles the conflict, and establishes that the original agreement was a sale of liquor on credit. ' The seller having no license, the statute was violated, and the subsequent agreement to cancel the trade and [760]*760return the whisky did not free the defendant from liability for the previous criminal act. Penal Code, §431. Compare Lowe v. State, 111 Ga. 650.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.E. 602, 118 Ga. 759, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lupo-v-state-ga-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack