Mills v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mills v. State

75 S.E. 266, 11 Ga. App. 383, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 412

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 23, 1912

Docket4242

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 266 (Mills 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

Mills v. State, 75 S.E. 266, 11 Ga. App. 383, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 412 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. A witness for the State having testified that he bought intoxicating liquor from the accused a large number of times during the two years immediately preceding the finding of the bill of indictment, it was not erroneous to admit, in corroboration of this evidence, the testimony of another witness, that during this period he had seen the accused several times with “his pockets loaded with whisky.”

2. The following instruction was a correct statement of the law: “It would not be necessary to show, in order to warrant a conviction, that the person who sold the liquor was the real owner of the liquor. If one person receives from the real owner liquor or whisky, and goes and sells it for the owner, delivers it for the owner, receives payment or purchase-price for the liquor for the owner, that would make the party who delivers it and sold it guilty, whether he was the real owner or not.” Even if there was no evidence that the accused, in making the sales, was acting as agent for another, the charge was not prejudicial, since, if he was not the agent, he was necessarily the principal, and was equally guilty in either event. Judgment affirmed,.

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

Pottle, J.

1. A witness for the State having testified that he bought intoxicating liquor from the accused a large number of times during the two years immediately preceding the finding of the bill of indictment, it was not erroneous to admit, in corroboration of this evidence, the testimony of another witness, that during this period he had seen the accused several times with “his pockets loaded with whisky.”

2. The following instruction was a correct statement of the law: “It would not be necessary to show, in order to warrant a conviction, that the person who sold the liquor was the real owner of the liquor. If one person receives from the real owner liquor or whisky, and goes and sells it for the owner, delivers it for the owner, receives payment or purchase-price for the liquor for the owner, that would make the party who delivers it and sold it guilty, whether he was the real owner or not.” Even if there was no evidence that the accused, in making the sales, was acting as agent for another, the charge was not prejudicial, since, if he was not the agent, he was necessarily the principal, and was equally guilty in either event. Judgment affirmed,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 266, 11 Ga. App. 383, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack