Tenney v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tenney v. State

135 S.E. 495, 36 Ga. App. 129, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 825

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1926

Docket17640

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 495 (Tenney 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

Tenney v. State, 135 S.E. 495, 36 Ga. App. 129, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Tenney was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The jury had a right to believe that a short distance from Tenney’s house there were concealed a great number of fruit-jars which contained “moonshine” whisky; that, leading immediately from Tenney’s backdoor to the place where' the whisky was concealed, there was a well-beaten path which had just been used by one wearing rubber boots with distinguishing [130]*130foot and heel impressions; that in Tenney’s house was a pair of rubber boots that had the distinguishing marks on them which were made in the path, and had mud signs which corresponded exactly with the mud along the pathway to the concealed whisky. In addition to the circumstance of ownership there was direct evidence that Tenney had in his physical possession a fruit-jar filled with whisky.

The jury had ample evidence to convict the defendant, and for no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling his motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworih, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

Tenney was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The jury had a right to believe that a short distance from Tenney’s house there were concealed a great number of fruit-jars which contained “moonshine” whisky; that, leading immediately from Tenney’s backdoor to the place where' the whisky was concealed, there was a well-beaten path which had just been used by one wearing rubber boots with distinguishing [130]*130foot and heel impressions; that in Tenney’s house was a pair of rubber boots that had the distinguishing marks on them which were made in the path, and had mud signs which corresponded exactly with the mud along the pathway to the concealed whisky. In addition to the circumstance of ownership there was direct evidence that Tenney had in his physical possession a fruit-jar filled with whisky.

The jury had ample evidence to convict the defendant, and for no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling his motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworih, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 495, 36 Ga. App. 129, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenney-v-state-gactapp-1926.