Wendelken v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wendelken v. State

132 S.E. 241, 35 Ga. App. 169, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 604

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1926

Docket16946

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E. 241 (Wendelken 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

Wendelken v. State, 132 S.E. 241, 35 Ga. App. 169, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 604 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Wendelken was convicted of possessing an apparatus for distilling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors. The sole assignment of error insisted upon is that the evidence did not authorize h'is conviction, because the evidence did not show that he was the owner of the premises on which the still was located. Held: The court properly overruled and denied the petition for certiorari. The evidence was positive that the defendant was in possession of a great quantity of stilled beer that was intoxicating and that the still for its distillation was there with the beer; and a finding that he had an interest in the still was amply authorized by the evidence. The evidence was ample to authorize the trial court to find that he was in possession of the apparatus upon lands presumptively his own. Wendelken has had a legal trial and the sentence of which he complains was within the province of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., dissents.

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

Luke, J.

Wendelken was convicted of possessing an apparatus for distilling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors. The sole assignment of error insisted upon is that the evidence did not authorize h'is conviction, because the evidence did not show that he was the owner of the premises on which the still was located. Held: The court properly overruled and denied the petition for certiorari. The evidence was positive that the defendant was in possession of a great quantity of stilled beer that was intoxicating and that the still for its distillation was there with the beer; and a finding that he had an interest in the still was amply authorized by the evidence. The evidence was ample to authorize the trial court to find that he was in possession of the apparatus upon lands presumptively his own. Wendelken has had a legal trial and the sentence of which he complains was within the province of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 241, 35 Ga. App. 169, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendelken-v-state-gactapp-1926.