Myers v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Myers v. State

85 S.E. 206, 16 Ga. App. 266, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 580

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 4, 1915

Docket6240

StatusPublished

This text of 85 S.E. 206 (Myers 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

Myers v. State, 85 S.E. 206, 16 Ga. App. 266, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 580 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. On the trial of one charged with selling intoxicating „ liquors, where the sole defense relied on is that the accused had no interest whatever in the sale, but acted simply as the agent of the purchaser, the burden is on the accused to show how, when, and from whom he obtained the liquor; and unless he does this to the satisfaction of the jury, they are authorized to conclude that his defense is merely a subterfuge, and that he was himself the seller, or at least that he was in[267]*267terested in the sale otherwise than as agent for the purchaser. Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265 (13 S. E. 554); White v. State, 93 Ga. 47 (19 S. E. 49); Mack v. State, 116 Ga. 546 (42 S. E. 776); Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045); Highsmith v. Waycross, 7 Ga. App. 611 (67 S. E. 677); Cheatwood v. Buchanan, 9 Ga. App. 828 (72 S. E. 284).

Decided May 4, 1915.

• Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Nashville — Judge Christian. December 14, 1914.

J. G. Smith, W. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error. J. II. Gary, solicitor, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. On the trial of one charged with selling intoxicating „ liquors, where the sole defense relied on is that the accused had no interest whatever in the sale, but acted simply as the agent of the purchaser, the burden is on the accused to show how, when, and from whom he obtained the liquor; and unless he does this to the satisfaction of the jury, they are authorized to conclude that his defense is merely a subterfuge, and that he was himself the seller, or at least that he was in[267]*267terested in the sale otherwise than as agent for the purchaser. Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265 (13 S. E. 554); White v. State, 93 Ga. 47 (19 S. E. 49); Mack v. State, 116 Ga. 546 (42 S. E. 776); Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045); Highsmith v. Waycross, 7 Ga. App. 611 (67 S. E. 677); Cheatwood v. Buchanan, 9 Ga. App. 828 (72 S. E. 284).

Decided May 4, 1915.

• Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Nashville — Judge Christian. December 14, 1914.

J. G. Smith, W. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error. J. II. Gary, solicitor, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 206, 16 Ga. App. 266, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack