Neville v. State

108 S.E. 802, 152 Ga. 205, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 47
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 14, 1921
DocketNo. 2639
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 802 (Neville v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neville v. State, 108 S.E. 802, 152 Ga. 205, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 47 (Ga. 1921).

Opinion

Pish, C. J.

1. The act to amend and supplement the prohibition laws of this State (Acts Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 7), which, among other provisions, made “ it unlawful to distill, manufacture, or make any alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, or malted liquors or intoxicating beverages in this State,” was not superseded and in effect repealed by the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and the Volstead act. Smith v. State, 150 Ga. 755, and cases cited (105 S. E. 364); Barbour v. Ben[206]*206ton, Raskin v. Dixon, 151 Ga. 708 (108 S. E. 61); Com. v. Nickerson, 236 Mass. 281 (128 N. E. 273, 10 A. L. R. 1568); State v. Fore, 180 N. C. 744 (105 S. E. 334). See collation of cases on the subject in 6 Cornell Law Quarterly, 443, 445 n. 12.

No. 2639. October 14, 1921. Indictment for making intoxicating liquor. Before Judge Shurley. Wilkes superior court. April 20, 1921. W. A. Slaton and Colley & Colley, for plaintiff in error. M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The request to review and overrule Smith v. State, supra, and the former decisions of this court there cited,-is denied.

3. In view of the rulings above announced, it was not error to overrule a general demurrer to the indictment charging the defendant with the unlawful manufacture of. intoxicating liquors in a given county of the State, nor to strike a plea seeking to set up want of jurisdiction in the State court to try the defendant for the offense charged. 4. The evidence authorized the verdict.

■Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., absent on account of sickness.

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

Related

Cooley v. State
110 S.E. 449 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Neville v. State
110 S.E. 180 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Winokur v. Harn
110 S.E. 234 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 S.E. 802, 152 Ga. 205, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neville-v-state-ga-1921.