Vaughan v. State

140 S.E.2d 66, 110 Ga. App. 709, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 746
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 25, 1964·No. 41009·Published

Opinion

Ebeehaedt, Judge.

The pickup truck involved was not alleged to have been used “in conveying, removing, concealing or storing” of nontax-paid liquor, hence the portion of Code Ann. § 58-207 relating to vehicles does not apply. It is contended by the State that the truck might be declared contraband as some “apparatus or appliances” used in the manufacture of moonshine. We do not agree that it comes within that category, but even if it did, in spite of the strict construction we are required to put on the statute, Premium Distrib. Co. v. State of Ga., 89 Ga. App. 222, 230 (79 SE2d 57), “apparatus or appliances” are not subject to condemnation under the Code section but only to being “summarily destroyed and rendered useless” [710]*710by the law enforcement officers. Leath v. Rosser, 52 Ga. App. 587 (1) (183 SE 839).

The judgment overruling intervenor’s demurrer must be

Reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

Vaughan v. State, 140 S.E.2d 66, 110 Ga. App. 709, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 746 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

140 S.E.2d 66 (Vaughan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leath v. Rosser
183 S.E. 839 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Premium Distributing Co. v. State
79 S.E.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)