Shurling v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shurling v. State

11 S.E.2d 395, 63 Ga. App. 636, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 512

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1940

Docket28508.

StatusPublished

This text of 11 S.E.2d 395 (Shurling 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

Shurling v. State, 11 S.E.2d 395, 63 Ga. App. 636, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

Hyrus Shurling was arrested on November 1, 1939, driving a Eord V-8 coupé, and on the seat beside him were certain lottery tickets dated the same day. It was in the daytime, about two o’clock p. m., and this was about the time of day that “pick-up” men collected the tickets. The method of operating a lottery or number game is admitted. He was alone in the car. He *637 contended in his statement that he did not know the tickets were in the ear, that he had loaned it to a boy fifteen minutes before he was arrested; and he denied that he had anything to do with any lottery. Held', that the evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction of the offense of keeping, maintaining, and operating a lottery known as the “number game” for the hazarding of money. See Ransome v. State, 53 Ga. App. 490 (186 S. E. 436); Turk v. State, 55 Ga. App. 732 (191 S. E. 283). The judge did not err in overruling the certiorari, for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

Hyrus Shurling was arrested on November 1, 1939, driving a Eord V-8 coupé, and on the seat beside him were certain lottery tickets dated the same day. It was in the daytime, about two o’clock p. m., and this was about the time of day that “pick-up” men collected the tickets. The method of operating a lottery or number game is admitted. He was alone in the car. He *637 contended in his statement that he did not know the tickets were in the ear, that he had loaned it to a boy fifteen minutes before he was arrested; and he denied that he had anything to do with any lottery. Held', that the evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction of the offense of keeping, maintaining, and operating a lottery known as the “number game” for the hazarding of money. See Ransome v. State, 53 Ga. App. 490 (186 S. E. 436); Turk v. State, 55 Ga. App. 732 (191 S. E. 283). The judge did not err in overruling the certiorari, for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.E.2d 395, 63 Ga. App. 636, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shurling-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack