Sims v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sims v. State

196 S.E. 111, 57 Ga. App. 655, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 358

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1938

Docket26464

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 S.E. 111 (Sims 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

Sims v. State, 196 S.E. 111, 57 Ga. App. 655, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 358 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinions

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing and distilling spirituous and alcoholic liquors. The evidence for the State disclosed that a “ still” was found about one hundred yards from defendant’s house with sufficient connecting circumstances to authorize an inference that it was under the control of the defendant. The officer testified that the still was not in operation at the time of the raid, “but it was hot; . . the still had live coals under it. . . The still had been in operation.” It was charged in the indictment that the defendant “did unlawfully distill, manufacture, and make spirituous liquors and beverages a part of which is alcoholic,” etc. The defendant pleaded not guilty to this charge. Thus the judge, jury, and counsel manifestly knew the witness was speaking of a still used to distill alcoholic liquors. The word in its present context was used as relating to a still for the manufacture of alcoholic liquors as charged in the indictment. We should not attach any factitious meaning to the word “still,” as turpentine still, etc. The' word “still” used in its present context implied an alcoholic liquor still, and therefore proof that the defendant operated the still, in the absence of adverse testimony, is sufficient to show that he operated an alcoholic liquor still. Carswell v. State, 7 Ga. App. 198 (66 S. E. 488). The case of Walker v. State, 32 Ga. App. 18 (122 S. E. 645) is distinguishable in that there the sheriff; testified: “I don’t swear that a run had been made there. The still was left in the furnace ready to run;” while here the testimony was that “the still had been operated.” The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial based on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Guerry, J., dissents.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing and distilling spirituous and alcoholic liquors. The evidence for the State disclosed that a “ still” was found about one hundred yards from defendant’s house with sufficient connecting circumstances to authorize an inference that it was under the control of the defendant. The officer testified that the still was not in operation at the time of the raid, “but it was hot; . . the still had live coals under it. . . The still had been in operation.” It was charged in the indictment that the defendant “did unlawfully distill, manufacture, and make spirituous liquors and beverages a part of which is alcoholic,” etc. The defendant pleaded not guilty to this charge. Thus the judge, jury, and counsel manifestly knew the witness was speaking of a still used to distill alcoholic liquors. The word in its present context was used as relating to a still for the manufacture of alcoholic liquors as charged in the indictment. We should not attach any factitious meaning to the word “still,” as turpentine still, etc. The' word “still” used in its present context implied an alcoholic liquor still, and therefore proof that the defendant operated the still, in the absence of adverse testimony, is sufficient to show that he operated an alcoholic liquor still. Carswell v. State, 7 Ga. App. 198 (66 S. E. 488). The case of Walker v. State, 32 Ga. App. 18 (122 S. E. 645) is distinguishable in that there the sheriff; testified: “I don’t swear that a run had been made there. The still was left in the furnace ready to run;” while here the testimony was that “the still had been operated.” The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial based on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Guerry, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 S.E. 111, 57 Ga. App. 655, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-state-gactapp-1938.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack