Scroggs v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Scroggs v. State

105 S.E. 363, 150 Ga. 753, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 326

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 17, 1920

DocketNo. 2275

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 363 (Scroggs 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

Scroggs v. State, 105 S.E. 363, 150 Ga. 753, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 326 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

1. Neither the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of

the United States, nor the national prohibition act generally referred to as the Volstead act, designed to carry that provision of the constitution into effect, had the effect of superseding or in any wise changing- the State statute (Act Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 7) declaring it to be a misdemeanor for one to have in his possession, custody, or control intoxicating liquors in this State. See Jones v. Hicks, 150 Ga. 657 (104 S. E. 771).

2. Accordingly it was not erroneous to overrule a demurrer to the accusation charging the accused with having, possessing, and controlling intoxicating liquors in this State, in violation of the State statute, upon the ground that the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and the national prohibition act had superseded and' abrogated the State statute.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict. IIill, J., dissents as to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., dissenting. W. V. Lance and Boyd Sloan, for plaintiff in error. E. D. Kenyon, solicitor, contra.

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

George, J.

1. Neither the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of

the United States, nor the national prohibition act generally referred to as the Volstead act, designed to carry that provision of the constitution into effect, had the effect of superseding or in any wise changing- the State statute (Act Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 7) declaring it to be a misdemeanor for one to have in his possession, custody, or control intoxicating liquors in this State. See Jones v. Hicks, 150 Ga. 657 (104 S. E. 771).

2. Accordingly it was not erroneous to overrule a demurrer to the accusation charging the accused with having, possessing, and controlling intoxicating liquors in this State, in violation of the State statute, upon the ground that the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and the national prohibition act had superseded and' abrogated the State statute.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict. IIill, J., dissents as to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., dissenting. W. V. Lance and Boyd Sloan, for plaintiff in error. E. D. Kenyon, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 363, 150 Ga. 753, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scroggs-v-state-ga-1920.

Opinion

1. Neither the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack