Alsabrook v. State

Jul 14, 1926
17416
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Bboyles
Bboyles, O. J.

Presence of a person at a distillery when whisky is actually being made, and his flight, or attempted flight, ‍​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍on seeing an officer approaching, may, when not satisfactorily explained, authorize a jury to find him guilty of manufacturing whisky. Whether an attempted explanation of such presence and conduct is reasonable and satisfactory is a question for the jury. Lindsay v. State, 32 Ga. App. 74 (3) ‍​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍(122 S. E. 649), and cit. In the instant ease the accused, with several other persons, was at a whisky distillery when it was in operation. There was some evidence that all the persons, including the accused, attempted to escape when ‍​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍the officers approached the distillery. The accused was the only white man at the distillery, which was a 60-gallon copper outfit. *593In the defendant’s statement to the jury he attempted to explain his presence at the distillery, but gave no reason ‍​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍for his attempted flight— which he did not deny. Nor did he deny having any interest in, or any connection with, the distillery. This court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the denial of a new trial was ‍​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍error.

Decided July 14, 1926. Rehearing denied August 4, 1926. B. G. Jenkins, for plaintiff in error. Joseph B. Duke, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.