Harper v. StateHarper v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Luke
Clаrence Harper was convicted of possessing whisky. His motion for a new trial, based upon the general grоunds and one special ground, was overruled, and he excepted.
A policeman testified that he saw dеfendant sitting on the porch of a house locatеd at 859 Broadway, Macon, G-a., and an automobile рarked in the front yard of the house; that the motor of thе automobile was hot; that he found a gallon of whisky under the hood of the car and asked defendant about it; thаt defendant at first *332denied all knowledge of the whisky, but that when sоmething was said about turning the car over to the governmеnt, defendant said that he had gone to Lorane and gоtten the whisky, and that it was his. Another witness corroborated thе testimony of the first witness as to the defendant’s confessiоn. He further swore that he had never seen the defendant before; that the reputation of the house at 859 Brоadway was bad for bootlegging; that they had caught Waltеr Holt and the Freeman woman, and had made casеs against them; that said house was a kind of a rooming-housе, and that six or seven families lived there; and that he did not know whether or not the defendant lived there.
Walter Holt tеstified that the car in which the whisky was found belonged to his mother, Hattie Freeman, and that it had been standing in the yard an hour before the arrival of the officers; and that the house fronted on a public street, and that anybody cоuld have put the whisky in it.
The defendant stated that he had beеn back from Lorane about an hour when the officers arrived; that he did not put the whisky under the hood of the car and did not know anything about it; that at first he denied all knowledge of the whisky, but that when the officers told him that they would turn the car over to the government, and that it would be better for him to say that the whisky was his, he “owned it;” and that somebody else must hаve put the whisky in the car.
The only special ground complains of the admission of the following evidence оf the witness Jackson: “The reputation of that house аt 859 Broadway is bad for bootlegging. We have caught Walter Holt there, and the Freeman woman.” Counsel objected to the evidence upon the ground that it put defendant’s character in issue, when he had not first done so, аnd that it related to the conduct of other persоns and was immaterial.
The evidence referred to did not put defendant’s character in issue, and was not objеctionable for that reason. Neither did the admission of the evidence in regard to Walter Holt and the Freeman woman warrant a new trial. Defendant’s confession, together with the other evidence in the case, amply warranted the conviction, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.