Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Marshall v. State

89 S.E. 347, 18 Ga. App. 276, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 286

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 23, 1916

Docket7425

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 347 (Marshall 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

Marshall v. State, 89 S.E. 347, 18 Ga. App. 276, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 286 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

The accused was charged with selling and bartering, for a valuable consideration, alcoholic, spirituous, malt, and intoxicating liquors. The evidence showed delivery of such liquors from his pocket in half-pint bottles, though it did not show actual payment of money, and it was testified that he had been receiving [278]*278about two gallons of whisky a week for several weeks before that time. His defense was that he ordered these liquors as agent for the persons to whom he delivered them. The court charged the jury that if there was a delivery, the law would presume a sale, unless the contrary appeared by proof. The evidence certainly authorized an inference that the accused was not giving away as a gift alcoholic spirits and intoxicating liquors in this “dry” day and generation, and the jury were authorized. to disregard his statement that he had ordered liquors for his friends as an agent. If the charge is not exactly adjusted to the facts in the case, the error, if any there be, does not require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion ¿or a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hodges, J.

The accused was charged with selling and bartering, for a valuable consideration, alcoholic, spirituous, malt, and intoxicating liquors. The evidence showed delivery of such liquors from his pocket in half-pint bottles, though it did not show actual payment of money, and it was testified that he had been receiving [278]*278about two gallons of whisky a week for several weeks before that time. His defense was that he ordered these liquors as agent for the persons to whom he delivered them. The court charged the jury that if there was a delivery, the law would presume a sale, unless the contrary appeared by proof. The evidence certainly authorized an inference that the accused was not giving away as a gift alcoholic spirits and intoxicating liquors in this “dry” day and generation, and the jury were authorized. to disregard his statement that he had ordered liquors for his friends as an agent. If the charge is not exactly adjusted to the facts in the case, the error, if any there be, does not require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion ¿or a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 347, 18 Ga. App. 276, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-state-gactapp-1916.