Brown v. State

Full title: BROWN v. THE STATE

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Nov 19, 1952

73 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)

73 S.E.2d 505

Opinion

34337.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 19, 1952.

Violating liquor law; from Marion Superior Court — Judge Fort. September 10, 1952.

Joseph M. Rogers, for plaintiff in error.

Russell C. Davison Jr., Solicitor-General, contra.

This case, which was in indictment for possessing non-tax-paid whisky, was tried with case No. 34338, and indictment for manufacturing whisky, and is controlled by the decision of this court in that case, to wit Brown v. State, (No. 34338), ante, holding that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict of guilty.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 19, 1952.

James V. Brown, Willie L. Johnson, Joe Talley, and Albert Benning were indicted by the Marion County grand jury for possessing non-tax-paid liquor, in that the defendants in said county on October 21, 1951, "did . . unlawfully have, possess and have in their possession, custody and control alcoholic and intoxicating liquors, to wit, whisky, which did not bear the State tax stamps as required" by law. James V. Brown pleaded not guilty. He was tried separately from the other defendants at the April term, 1952, of the Superior Court of Marion County, and on April 29, 1952, was found guilty. The defendant moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and to the judgment refusing a new trial he excepted.

GARDNER, P.J.

The evidence on which the jury based their verdict of guilty in this case was the same evidence on which the jury found the defendant guilty of manufacturing whisky in Brown v. State (case No. 34338), ante. The two cases were tried together in said court. It has been this day ruled that, under such evidence, the jury were authorized to find the defendant guilty of manufacturing whisky; and the present case involves the conviction of the defendant for possession of the moonshine whisky found by the officers at this still when they raided it, to wit, 150 gallons of whisky in a vat. This evidence therefore was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.