Widincamp v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Widincamp v. State

145 S.E. 504, 38 Ga. App. 728, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 414

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1928

Docket19100

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E. 504 (Widincamp 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

Widincamp v. State, 145 S.E. 504, 38 Ga. App. 728, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 414 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

A policeman testified that he saw the defendant and one Hughes enter a water-closet in the City of Baxley, and that when he pushed open the door to the closet he saw the defendant sitting on the toilet, holding in his hand a pint-bottle containing a little whisky. The defendant stated that he went in the closet to relieve himself, and that Hughes said, “What is that in that bottle in that hens-nest in the corner ?” He further stated that Hughes handed him the bottle of whisky and he took a drink; that it was not his whisky, and that he did know it was in the closet.. Hughes testified that he was in the closet with the defendant; that he knew the whisky wüs in the closet because “he had been there some time that evening before with Widincamp and took a drink;” and that he did not know whose liquor it was. Brint Carter testified that he had seen the liquor in the closet two or three days before Widincamp was arrested, but that he did not touch it.

It would serve no good purpose to state the evidence as to another transaction involving circumstantial evidence. The evidence stated sustains the verdict of guilty. A case somewhat analogous is that of Lambert v. State, 37 Ga. App. 174 (139 S. E. 95).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

A policeman testified that he saw the defendant and one Hughes enter a water-closet in the City of Baxley, and that when he pushed open the door to the closet he saw the defendant sitting on the toilet, holding in his hand a pint-bottle containing a little whisky. The defendant stated that he went in the closet to relieve himself, and that Hughes said, “What is that in that bottle in that hens-nest in the corner ?” He further stated that Hughes handed him the bottle of whisky and he took a drink; that it was not his whisky, and that he did know it was in the closet.. Hughes testified that he was in the closet with the defendant; that he knew the whisky wüs in the closet because “he had been there some time that evening before with Widincamp and took a drink;” and that he did not know whose liquor it was. Brint Carter testified that he had seen the liquor in the closet two or three days before Widincamp was arrested, but that he did not touch it.

It would serve no good purpose to state the evidence as to another transaction involving circumstantial evidence. The evidence stated sustains the verdict of guilty. A case somewhat analogous is that of Lambert v. State, 37 Ga. App. 174 (139 S. E. 95).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 504, 38 Ga. App. 728, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widincamp-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack