Wolf v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wolf v. State

85 S.E. 86, 16 Ga. App. 250, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 567

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1915

Docket6241

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 86 (Wolf 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

Wolf v. State, 85 S.E. 86, 16 Ga. App. 250, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with a violation of the law by selling intoxicating liquor, “proof that the accused received money from another person, accompanied with a request to procure whisky for. the latter, and shortly thereafter delivered whisky to such person, puts the onus on the defendant of explaining where, how, and from whom he got the liquor;” and it is for the jury to say whether this burden has or has not. been successfully carried. Highsmith v. Wayeross, 7 Ga. App. 611 (67 S. E. 677), and cases cited.

2. The special assignments of error contained in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, will be treated as abandoned. Judgment affirmed.

• Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Nashville — Judge Christian. December 14, 1914.

J. G. Smith, G. Bradford, W. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Gary, solicitor, contra.

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

Russell, O. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with a violation of the law by selling intoxicating liquor, “proof that the accused received money from another person, accompanied with a request to procure whisky for. the latter, and shortly thereafter delivered whisky to such person, puts the onus on the defendant of explaining where, how, and from whom he got the liquor;” and it is for the jury to say whether this burden has or has not. been successfully carried. Highsmith v. Wayeross, 7 Ga. App. 611 (67 S. E. 677), and cases cited.

2. The special assignments of error contained in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, will be treated as abandoned. Judgment affirmed.

• Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Nashville — Judge Christian. December 14, 1914.

J. G. Smith, G. Bradford, W. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Gary, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 86, 16 Ga. App. 250, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack