Vaughan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Vaughan v. State

140 S.E.2d 66, 110 Ga. App. 709, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 746

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 25, 1964

Docket41009

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E.2d 66 (Vaughan 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 66, 110 Ga. App. 709, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-state-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack