Massart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Massart v. State

95 S.E. 538, 22 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 173

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket9464

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 538 (Massart 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

Massart v. State, 95 S.E. 538, 22 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 173 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

The charge against the defendant was that he “did unlawfully have, control, and possess spirituous liquors.” The witness for the State testified that he found numerous quantities and varieties of spirituous liquors in defendant’s house. The defendant introduced no evidence, and in his statement admitted that he had spirituous liquors in his possession and control, and said, “I, am no frequent violator of this law.” The verdict of guilty was authorized, and the trial judge properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

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

Harwell, J.

The charge against the defendant was that he “did unlawfully have, control, and possess spirituous liquors.” The witness for the State testified that he found numerous quantities and varieties of spirituous liquors in defendant’s house. The defendant introduced no evidence, and in his statement admitted that he had spirituous liquors in his possession and control, and said, “I, am no frequent violator of this law.” The verdict of guilty was authorized, and the trial judge properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 538, 22 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massart-v-state-gactapp-1918.