Shepherd v. State

20 S.E.2d 446, 67 Ga. App. 448, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 442
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 13, 1942·No. 29530.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Gardner, J.

The defendant was indicted jointly with T. A. Ogletree, the charge being that he “unlawfully did keep, maintain, employ, and carry on a certain scheme and device for the hazarding 'of money, said device being one called and known as a slot machine.” He was tried separately and convicted. His motion for new trial was overruled and he excepted.

The special grounds of the motion assign error on the admission of documentary and parol evidence over objections. If it be said that the objections were meritorious the error was harmless. The brief of evidence as a whole shows that the defendant introduced evidencé to the same effect as that to which objections were entered. There is possibly one exception to this statement. The witness G. N. Shepherd testified that he was the owner of the place where the slot machines were alleged to have been operating; that he sold intoxicating liquors there, and he was required to state from whom he purchased such liquors. We think this testimony was admissible as affecting the credibility of the witness. That portion of it which did not go to his credibility we feel could not possibly have prejudiced the defendant’s cause. The special grounds are without merit.

As to the general grounds, the evidence was overwhelming that the law against gaming was being notoriously and flagrantly violated at the place in question. Several witnesses, including G. N. Shepherd, the younger brother of the defendant, testified that when he was not present at the gaming house in question, the defendant was in charge of the place. We think this, and other evidence which is set out in detail hereinafter, authorized the jury to find that the defendant was present, aiding and abetting in the commission of the offense charged. After a very careful consid *449 eration of all the testimony, we think it was sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. We set out below the witnesses for the State and for the defendant, by number, giving in substance the testimony of each which tended in any wise to connect the defendant with the transaction charged:

For the State: 1. Was there once. Never saw defendant at the place. 2. Was there a dozen times. Saw defendant doing various things, mostly in kitchen; seemed to superintend the kitchen. If anything wrong with food, complainant saw defendant; if anything else .wrong complainant saw G. N. Shepherd, brother of defendant, who operates the place. The wife of G. N. Shepherd is the cashier. Four or five people work there. Eedirect examination : Did not draw deed to place where County-Line Club located. Checked title to a small tract, about two acres. G. N. Shepherd paid witness to check title. 3. Was there about a dozen times. About twelve slot machines there. Defendant was general supervisor. He saw to food being properly fixed; might say he was the host. Don’t know that defendant had any interest in place. Do not know who operated place. 4. Was there three or four times. Know defendant. When there, saw defendant standing at other end of room from machines; standing there before counter or bar. Did not see him exercise any supervision over club. Saw him talk to people when they came near front of room. 5. Know defendant. He was just standing around in front. Don’t know who had charge. Do not know whether defendant had any interest or not. 6. Anything wrong with food, complainant called on defendant. He was in kitchen; supervisor. G. N. Shepherd looked after anything wrong with slot machines. Don’t know who .looked after machines when G. N. not "there. Don’t recall such an occasion. 7. (Policeman.) Was there four times. Defendant in kitchen except once at counter. Every time saw defendant in kitchen preparing food. 8. Did not see defendant there. 9. (Policeman.) Was there one or two weeks ago. Saw no slot machines. Defendant walked in and slipped on apron as witness was leaving. 10. (Chief of LaGrange police.) Was there about four months ago, around three o’clock. Defendant and four or five negroes in kitchen. Eight or ten slot machines there. Defendant only white person witness saw in charge. Wasn’t doing anything. Hadn’t opened up. 11. Was there five or Six times. Played slot ma *450 chines. Defendant was there in charge of kitchen; works there. G. N. (Snooks) Shepherd, brother of defendant, was there. When G. N. Shepherd wasn’t there a boy named Lewis was in charge. Defendant superintending cooking. G. N. Shepherd was there every time except one. Defendant was not there then. G. N. was the man in charge; looking after the business and taking in money. 13. Never saw any one play. (Said nothing about defendant.)

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

Shepherd v. State, 20 S.E.2d 446, 67 Ga. App. 448, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

20 S.E.2d 446 (Shepherd v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holsenbeck v. Arnold
43 S.E.2d 348 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)