George v. StateGeorge v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Luke
1. “In tbis State the husband is recognizеd by law as the head of his fаmily, and, where he and his wife reside together, the legal presumption is that the house and all the household effects, including any intoxiсating liquors, belong to the husband as the head of the fаmily. This presumption, of cоurse, is rebuttable.” Isom v. State, 32 Ga. App. 75 (122 S. E. 722). See also Hendrix v. State, 24 Ga. App. 56 (100 S. E. 55); *514Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (95. S. E. 478). Applying the foregoing rule of law to the evidence as а whole, and to the defendant’s statement that “other people live in that house besides me,” the jury hаd the right to conclude thаt the defendant was in the possession, custody, and. control of the seventy-seven pints of whisky found in the housе occupied by his wife аnd children; and this is true notwithstanding the defendant’s assertion thаt his mother-in-law rented the house, and that his cousin lived in it, аnd that the defendant himself “did not live in Yaldosta for the рast eight years for more than about two weeks at a time.” It follows that the judgmеnt overruling the motion for а new trial can not be rеversed upon the general grounds of the motion.
2. While the trial judge, in his charge tо the jury, might have appliеd the rule of law set out in Isom v. State, supra, more aptly to thе different phases of thе case, including the cоntentions made by the defеndant in his statement, yet in the light оf the charge as a whole, and of the fact that there was no request for fuller or more specific instructions, this court declines to hold that either of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial discloses reversible error. See Reynolds v. State, 23 Ga. App. 369 (98 S. E. 246).
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.