Thompson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. State

155 S.E. 354, 42 Ga. App. 249, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 311

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1930

Docket20729

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.E. 354 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 155 S.E. 354, 42 Ga. App. 249, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant “did sell and barter for a valuable consideration malted, fermented, brewed liquors commonly called home brew, manufactured from malt in part, and brewed and fermented liquors and beverages in which maltose is a substantial ingredient, and liquors and beverages and drinks made in imitation of and intended as a substitute for beer, ale and whisky.”

The conviction rests entirely upon the testimony of one witness that the defendant sold him seven or eight bottles of “home brew” for twenty-five cehts a bottle. In principle, this case is controlled by the following ruling in Henderson v. State, 38 Ga. App. 256 (144 S. E. 16) : “There being no evidence'that the ‘home brew’ found in the defendant’s place of business was an intoxicating beverage, his conviction of possessing intoxicating liquors was unauthorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.” This court can [250]*250not take judicial cognizance that “home brew” is one of the prohibited beverages mentioned in the indictment, and, there being no evidence that it was, the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial based solely upon the general grounds.

■ Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodivorih, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant “did sell and barter for a valuable consideration malted, fermented, brewed liquors commonly called home brew, manufactured from malt in part, and brewed and fermented liquors and beverages in which maltose is a substantial ingredient, and liquors and beverages and drinks made in imitation of and intended as a substitute for beer, ale and whisky.”

The conviction rests entirely upon the testimony of one witness that the defendant sold him seven or eight bottles of “home brew” for twenty-five cehts a bottle. In principle, this case is controlled by the following ruling in Henderson v. State, 38 Ga. App. 256 (144 S. E. 16) : “There being no evidence'that the ‘home brew’ found in the defendant’s place of business was an intoxicating beverage, his conviction of possessing intoxicating liquors was unauthorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.” This court can [250]*250not take judicial cognizance that “home brew” is one of the prohibited beverages mentioned in the indictment, and, there being no evidence that it was, the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial based solely upon the general grounds.

■ Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodivorih, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 354, 42 Ga. App. 249, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack