Mills v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mills v. City of Atlanta

85 S.E. 678, 16 Ga. App. 544, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 28, 1915

Docket6561

StatusPublished

This text of 85 S.E. 678 (Mills 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

Mills v. City of Atlanta, 85 S.E. 678, 16 Ga. App. 544, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1.- On the trial of one charged with a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of any spirituous, fermented, or malt liquors within the limits of the municipality for unlawful sale, proof that the accused made one illegal sale of liquor is sufficient to show that the liquor sold was kept on the particular occasion for the purpose of illegal sale. Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198 (47 S. E. 560); Thomas v. Atlanta, 16 Ga. App. 227 (84 S. E. 964); Barnes v. Atlanta, 16 Ga. App. 232 (84 S. E. 964), and cases there cited.

2. There was direct evidence that the accused was in possession and control, within the limits of the City of Atlanta, of liquor there purchased from her by the witness; and therefore the recorder was warranted in drawing the inference that she was keeping the liquor for sale in violation of the municipal ordinance. The case of Lumpkin v. Atlanta, 12 Ga. App. 111 (76 S. E. 1059), is not in point. The evidence authorized the judgment rendered by the recorder, and that judgment has been approved by the judge of the superior eourt. Judgment affirmed.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. March 23, 1915.

G. G. Battle, for plaintiff in error. J. L. Mayson, W. D. Ellis Jr., contra.

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

Wade, J.

1.- On the trial of one charged with a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of any spirituous, fermented, or malt liquors within the limits of the municipality for unlawful sale, proof that the accused made one illegal sale of liquor is sufficient to show that the liquor sold was kept on the particular occasion for the purpose of illegal sale. Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198 (47 S. E. 560); Thomas v. Atlanta, 16 Ga. App. 227 (84 S. E. 964); Barnes v. Atlanta, 16 Ga. App. 232 (84 S. E. 964), and cases there cited.

2. There was direct evidence that the accused was in possession and control, within the limits of the City of Atlanta, of liquor there purchased from her by the witness; and therefore the recorder was warranted in drawing the inference that she was keeping the liquor for sale in violation of the municipal ordinance. The case of Lumpkin v. Atlanta, 12 Ga. App. 111 (76 S. E. 1059), is not in point. The evidence authorized the judgment rendered by the recorder, and that judgment has been approved by the judge of the superior eourt. Judgment affirmed.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. March 23, 1915.

G. G. Battle, for plaintiff in error. J. L. Mayson, W. D. Ellis Jr., contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 678, 16 Ga. App. 544, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack