Lupo v. State

Oct 24, 1903
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Lamar
Lamar, J.

On his trial for selling liquor without a license, the defendant claimed that there ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‍had been no sale but a bona fide loan. Huby v. State, 111 Ga. 842. The witness for the State, however, testified that he bought from the defendant a half pint of whisky for twenty-five cents, ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‍to be paid when they returned to town. Later in the day the defendant said that he “ did not want the money, but that I could, pay back ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‍the liquor. We canceled the trade, and I was to pay him the liquor back.” The verdict settles the conflict, and establishes that the original agreement was a sale ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‍of liquor on credit. ’ The seller having no license, the statute was violated, and the subsequent agreement to cancel the trade and *760return the whisky did not free the defendant ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‍from liability for the previous criminal act. Penal Code, §431. Compare Lowe v. State, 111 Ga. 650.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.