107 Ga. 766 | Ga. | 1899
Lead Opinion
Billups was arraigned and convicted in the county court of Walton county, for the offense of selling liquor unlawfully on the 17th day of August, 1897. His petition for certiorari to the superior court, complaining that the verdict against him was not warranted by the evidence, was overruled, and he excepted. The evidence introduced upon the trial was as follows. Fowler, a witness for the State, testified: “I know Henry Billups, the defendant. On or about the 17th day of August, 1897, I asked him if he knew where I could get a drink. He said he did. I gave him 50 cents, and he brought back a bottle of corn whisky. This was in this county on a back street. He brought the whisky to me. I did not buy it right out of his hands. He was gone a half-hour, I reckon. I delivered the money before the whisky was delivered. It was a half-hour, I reckon.” Jack Russaw, a witness for the accused, testified: “I was with Henry when he went after the whisky. He got it at Buckalew. I don’t know what morning this was; it was last year or this year one. I don’t know what month it was. We went in Mr. Frank Felker’s buggy at Buckalew on the railroad. It’s broke up now. I was with him when Mr. Fowler gave him the money.” After the introduction of the testimony above quoted, the accused made the following statement: “Well, I — Mr. Fowler came to town and asked me if I knew where he could get a dram. I said, yes. I got the whisky of Isham Palmer, and brought it back and set it down till he came. Jack was with me in the buggy when I went after the whisky. We went to the factory.”
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. On the trial of one charged with the offence of illegally selling spirituous liquors, where the State relies for a conviction solely upon the presumption of guilt arising from the fact that the accused received money from another with a request to procure whisky and shortly afterward delivered the whisky in compliance with the request, a verdict of guilty is contrary to evidence, when, in reply to the prima facie case thus made by the State, it is shown by the statement of the accused, corroborated in material particulars by the uncontradicted evidence of a witness, that another person filled the character of seller of the whisky and