Shahan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shahan v. State

111 S.E. 224, 28 Ga. App. 343, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 495

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1922

Docket13129

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 224 (Shahan 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

Shahan v. State, 111 S.E. 224, 28 Ga. App. 343, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 495 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law. Upon conflicting evidence the jury were authorized to find him guilty.

The defendant’s special ground in his motion for new trial which alleges that the court erred in permitting the State’s witness to testify that he paid the defendant for the whisky which the defendant sold him by giving him a check is without merit. The best-evidence rule does not apply in an instance like this. The witness having sworn that he bought the whisky, it was not error ■to allow him to testify that he paid for the whisky by giving a bank check for it. The check was not the basis of the action, and was only collaterally involved. See, in this connection, Southern States Exploring &c. Syndicate v. McManus, 113 Ga. 982 (2) (39 S. [344]*344E. 480); Sasser v. Campbell, 9 Ga. App. 178 (2) (70 S. E. 980); Avery v. Armour, 17 Ga. App. 458 (3) (87 S. E. 698).

It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law. Upon conflicting evidence the jury were authorized to find him guilty.

The defendant’s special ground in his motion for new trial which alleges that the court erred in permitting the State’s witness to testify that he paid the defendant for the whisky which the defendant sold him by giving him a check is without merit. The best-evidence rule does not apply in an instance like this. The witness having sworn that he bought the whisky, it was not error ■to allow him to testify that he paid for the whisky by giving a bank check for it. The check was not the basis of the action, and was only collaterally involved. See, in this connection, Southern States Exploring &c. Syndicate v. McManus, 113 Ga. 982 (2) (39 S. [344]*344E. 480); Sasser v. Campbell, 9 Ga. App. 178 (2) (70 S. E. 980); Avery v. Armour, 17 Ga. App. 458 (3) (87 S. E. 698).

It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 224, 28 Ga. App. 343, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shahan-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack