Touchstone v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Touchstone v. State

86 S.E. 744, 17 Ga. App. 333, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 396

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 29, 1915

Docket6796

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 S.E. 744 (Touchstone 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

Touchstone v. State, 86 S.E. 744, 17 Ga. App. 333, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. On the trial of one charged with selling whisky, proof that he received money from another person, accompanied hy a request to procure whisky for the latter, and thereafter went off, and returned and delivered a quart of whisky to that person, would cast on the accused the burden of showing where, how, and from whom he got the whisky. Whether he successfully carried this burden would be a question for determination by the jury. Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265 (13 S. E. 554); Mack v. State, 116 Ga. 546 (42 S. E. 776); Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045), Benton v. State, 9 Ga. App. 422 (3), 423 (71 S. E. 498). In this ease the jury were authorized to find that the defense set up by the uncorroborated statement of the accused that he acted solely as the agent of the buyer was a mere subterfuge to escape punishment.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. On the trial of one charged with selling whisky, proof that he received money from another person, accompanied hy a request to procure whisky for the latter, and thereafter went off, and returned and delivered a quart of whisky to that person, would cast on the accused the burden of showing where, how, and from whom he got the whisky. Whether he successfully carried this burden would be a question for determination by the jury. Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265 (13 S. E. 554); Mack v. State, 116 Ga. 546 (42 S. E. 776); Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045), Benton v. State, 9 Ga. App. 422 (3), 423 (71 S. E. 498). In this ease the jury were authorized to find that the defense set up by the uncorroborated statement of the accused that he acted solely as the agent of the buyer was a mere subterfuge to escape punishment.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 744, 17 Ga. App. 333, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/touchstone-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack