Powell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Powell v. State

6 S.E.2d 794, 61 Ga. App. 586, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 171

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 18, 1940

Docket27832.

StatusPublished

This text of 6 S.E.2d 794 (Powell 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

Powell v. State, 6 S.E.2d 794, 61 Ga. App. 586, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Gueeby, J.

1. Where the defendant was indicted and convicted on the charge of selling intoxicating liquors, the conviction was not unauthorized on testimony for the State that the "witness “purchased” certain whisky from the accused, without testifying as to the consideration paid, whether in money or other thing of value. Proof that the witness “purchased” whisky from the defendant, though the consideration be undisclosed, is “sufficient to import a valuable consideration.” Grimes v. State, 32 Ga. App. 541 (123 S. E. 918). This is true whether or not the indictment alleges, with reference to the sale, that it was for a valuable consideration.

2. Though the evidence, which was direct, was in sharp conflict, Die jury found adversely to the accused, and this court is powerless' to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. *587 Kelly •& Hides, for plaintiff in error. J. Ralph Rosser, solicitor-general, Alec Harris, contra.

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

Gueeby, J.

1. Where the defendant was indicted and convicted on the charge of selling intoxicating liquors, the conviction was not unauthorized on testimony for the State that the "witness “purchased” certain whisky from the accused, without testifying as to the consideration paid, whether in money or other thing of value. Proof that the witness “purchased” whisky from the defendant, though the consideration be undisclosed, is “sufficient to import a valuable consideration.” Grimes v. State, 32 Ga. App. 541 (123 S. E. 918). This is true whether or not the indictment alleges, with reference to the sale, that it was for a valuable consideration.

2. Though the evidence, which was direct, was in sharp conflict, Die jury found adversely to the accused, and this court is powerless' to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. *587 Kelly •& Hides, for plaintiff in error. J. Ralph Rosser, solicitor-general, Alec Harris, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.E.2d 794, 61 Ga. App. 586, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack