McGee v. State
This text of 100 S.E. 733 (McGee 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.
Opinion
Where, upon the trial of one charged with possessing intoxicating liquors in violation of law, the testimony disclosed that in a barn, of which two persons had equal possession, control, and dominion, liquor was found, and there was nothing more shown than joint occupancy, control, and dominion over the barn, it was error harmful- to the defendant, who was away from home at the time of the seizure of the [269]*269liquor and denied ownership or knowledge of the presence of the liquor in the barn, for the court, in charging upon circumstantial evidence and possession, power, custody and control over the barn in which the liquor was found, not to allude to the joint occupancy, possession, power, and control of the barn; for one might have power over, custody, and control with another of a house, and yet not know of hidden liquors stored therein. See Hall v. State, 65 Ga. 36 (3); Shropshire v. State, 69 Ga. 273; Moncrief v. State, 99 Ga. 295 (25 S. E. 735); Lunceford v. Mayor &c. of Washington, 17 Ga. App. 730 (88 S. E. 212). For the reasons given the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
100 S.E. 733, 24 Ga. App. 268, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-state-gactapp-1919.