Chamblee v. StateChamblee v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Gtjerry
The defendant was convicted оf the offense of the possession of intoxicating liquors. The brief оf evidence contained in thе record before this court is аs follows: “Branson Washington testified that sometime in August, 1933, he found the defendant Brown Chamblee in possession оf a scant pint bottle of whisky. - Chesser testified that he went to the home of Brown Chamblee on the 9th of October, 1933, and bought a bottle of whisky, thаt -Trammell was with him, and he drank enough оf the whisky to make him, Trammell, drunk. ■—— Trammell testified that sometime in Decembеr, 1933, he went to the home of Brown Chamblee with the said Chesser, and saw Brоwn Chamblee, the defendant, sell tо Chesser a bottle of whisky, and this sale and possession was in Floyd county, Ga. The defendant, Brown Chambleе, made.a statement denying that hе ever sold whisky to either of the witnesses, Trammell or Chesser, and said that he was not guilty of the offense сharged.” Held:
1. In the trial of one charged with the possession of intoxicating liquors, the State is not restricted to proof of possession on the date named in the indictment but may show such possession a.t аny time within two years prior to the rеturn of the indictment. Kemp v. State, 16 Ga. App. 251 (85 S. E. 90), and cit.
2. There was direct evidence of the commissiоn by the defendant of the offensе charged. The law with reference to the proof necessary in cases dependent sоlely on circumstantial evidence, as contained in the Penаl Code (1910), § 1010, was therefore not applicable. Wilson v. State, 152 Ga. 337 (110 S. E. 8).
3. The possession by the defendant of intoxicаting liquors in violation of the act оf 1917 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, pp. 7, 8) was shown. The venuе was properly laid. No errоr of law having been committed, this court can not interfere with the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.