Shaw v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shaw v. State

103 S.E. 470, 25 Ga. App. 392, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 827

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1920

Docket11433

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.E. 470 (Shaw 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

Shaw v. State, 103 S.E. 470, 25 Ga. App. 392, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 827 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was charged with having and possessing intoxicating liquors in violation of the law. The witness testified that the defendant possessed one barrel of‘“buck,” which is made from corn, syrup, and water, and that “buck” was intoxicating. It makes no difference by what name an intoxicant may be known, tlie question is whether the liquid is an intoxicant. [393]*393The defendant’s evidence to the effect that the liquid was just for hog feed was not believed by the jury. The charge of the court was full and fair, and the conviction of the defendant was not without evidence to support it. For no reason assigned was it 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 charged with having and possessing intoxicating liquors in violation of the law. The witness testified that the defendant possessed one barrel of‘“buck,” which is made from corn, syrup, and water, and that “buck” was intoxicating. It makes no difference by what name an intoxicant may be known, tlie question is whether the liquid is an intoxicant. [393]*393The defendant’s evidence to the effect that the liquid was just for hog feed was not believed by the jury. The charge of the court was full and fair, and the conviction of the defendant was not without evidence to support it. For no reason assigned was it 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)

103 S.E. 470, 25 Ga. App. 392, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-state-gactapp-1920.