Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Young v. State

Young v. State

95 S.E. 478, 22 Ga. App. 111, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 178, 1918 WL 99
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 2, 1918
Docket9476
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 478 (Young 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
Young v. State, 95 S.E. 478, 22 Ga. App. 111, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 178, 1918 WL 99 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the faóts of the case the court did not err in admitting in evidence ' the alleged confession.

2. Tlie instruction complained of, that “As a general rule, where the husband and wife live together, whatever is found at the place where they live is presumed to be that of the husband, but this is only true as a. general rule,” does not aptly or correctly express the law upon the subject in question. In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of his family, and, where he and his wife reside together, the legal presumption is always, and not génerally,* tliat the house and all the household effects belong to the husband as the head of the family. Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584 (13 S. E. 749); Smith v. Berman, 8 Ga. App. 262 (68 S. E. 1014). This presumption, however, like all presumptions, may be rebutted. Smith v. Berman, supra. The error in the charge, however, does not require a new trial in this case, since there was evidence that the defendant, who was charged with manufacturing intoxicating liquors, made a direct confession that she had been making the same; and if this confession was true (and the jury found that it was), it was immaterial whether the house and the household effects, including the liquor itself, belonged to her or to her husband.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur. Indictment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; from Camden superior court—Judge Highsmith. December 8, 1917. ' James T. Vocelle, for plaintiff in error. Alvin V. Sellers, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Related

Stinnett v. State
87 S.E.2d 354 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Plohn v. Plohn
206 Misc. 969 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Brawner v. State
75 S.E.2d 184 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Upchurch v. Upchurch
45 S.E.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Haney v. State
44 S.E.2d 492 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
West v. State
39 S.E.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Wyatt v. State
34 S.E.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Rawlins v. State
28 S.E.2d 350 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Lemon v. State
19 S.E.2d 52 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Gibbs v. State
17 S.E.2d 237 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Dailey v. State
198 S.E. 791 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Pirkle v. State
187 S.E. 602 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Kreutz v. State
185 S.E. 371 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Gilder v. State
183 S.E. 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Ealey v. State
151 S.E. 400 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
George v. State
140 S.E. 903 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Isom v. State
122 S.E. 722 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Hendrix v. State
100 S.E. 55 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E. 478, 22 Ga. App. 111, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 178, 1918 WL 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-gactapp-1918.