Spicer v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spicer v. State

79 S.E. 747, 13 Ga. App. 677, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 316

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 28, 1913

Docket5172

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 747 (Spicer 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

Spicer v. State, 79 S.E. 747, 13 Ga. App. 677, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. No error of law being assigned, and the evidence author- • izing the conviction of the accused, the trial judge did not err in over-ruling the motion for a new trial.

2. Evidence to the effect that the accused was seen to hand to the person named in the indictment as the purchaser of intoxicants a bottle, which was shortly thereafter obtained from the latter, and which contained whisky, and received in return, from the party to whom the bottle was handed, something which the witness could not see, but which was placed in the pocket of the recipient, is sufficient to support the inference that the person who parted with the bottle of whisky received, either by way of sale or barter, sufficient consideration to authorize a conviction of a violation of the general prohibition law. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

1. No error of law being assigned, and the evidence author- • izing the conviction of the accused, the trial judge did not err in over-ruling the motion for a new trial.

2. Evidence to the effect that the accused was seen to hand to the person named in the indictment as the purchaser of intoxicants a bottle, which was shortly thereafter obtained from the latter, and which contained whisky, and received in return, from the party to whom the bottle was handed, something which the witness could not see, but which was placed in the pocket of the recipient, is sufficient to support the inference that the person who parted with the bottle of whisky received, either by way of sale or barter, sufficient consideration to authorize a conviction of a violation of the general prohibition law. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 747, 13 Ga. App. 677, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spicer-v-state-gactapp-1913.