Pirkle v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pirkle v. State

187 S.E. 602, 54 Ga. App. 203, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 488

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1936

Docket25649

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 602 (Pirkle 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

Pirkle v. State, 187 S.E. 602, 54 Ga. App. 203, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of his family, and, where he and his wife reside together, the legal presumption is that the house and all the household effects, including any intoxicating liquors, belong to the husband as the head-of the family. This presumption of course is rebuttable. Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (95 S. E. 478) ; Hendrix v. State, 24 Ga. App. 56 (100 S. E. 55) ; Isom v. State, 32 Ga. App. 75 (122 S. E. 722). Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the legal presumption arose that the whisky found in the defendant’s house (and under the bed then occupied by his sick wife) belonged to the defendant; and under the evidence adduced it was for the jury to determine whether the presumption had been rebutted. The judge did not err in approving the finding of the jury, and in overruling the motion for new trial based upon the usual general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of his family, and, where he and his wife reside together, the legal presumption is that the house and all the household effects, including any intoxicating liquors, belong to the husband as the head-of the family. This presumption of course is rebuttable. Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (95 S. E. 478) ; Hendrix v. State, 24 Ga. App. 56 (100 S. E. 55) ; Isom v. State, 32 Ga. App. 75 (122 S. E. 722). Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the legal presumption arose that the whisky found in the defendant’s house (and under the bed then occupied by his sick wife) belonged to the defendant; and under the evidence adduced it was for the jury to determine whether the presumption had been rebutted. The judge did not err in approving the finding of the jury, and in overruling the motion for new trial based upon the usual general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 602, 54 Ga. App. 203, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pirkle-v-state-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack