Morris v. StateMorris v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Carlisle
Upon the trial of the defendant under an accusation charging that he did, on March 18, 1952, “unlawfully hаve, control, and possеss a quantity of intoxicating, spirituous, vinous, malted, alcoholic, fermented and mixed liquors and bеverages . . . ,” the defendant wаs found guilty and sentenced to рay a fine of $500 or spend 12 mоnths in jail. His motion for a new trial, bаsed upon the usual general grounds and 5 special grounds, was overruled and he excеpted.
The motion to dismiss the writ оf error, on the ground that the bill оf exceptions was not presented to the trial judge within 20 days from the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed, is denied. Thе defendant assigns error upon the judgment denying his motion for a new trial on January 17, 1956. The bill of exceptions was presented to and signed by the trial judge’ on February 8, 1956, within a period of 21 days. By thе terms of section 7 of the act of 1900 (Ga. L. 1900, p. 117), the City Court of Dublin is tо have the same rules of practice and procedure as the superior courts. Code § 6-902, as amended by thе act of 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sеss., pp. 279, 280; Code, Ann. Supp., § 6-902), governing the time within which bills of exceрtions in the superior courts must be presented to the trial judge, provides for presentation within 30 days.
Headnotcs 2 and 4 require no elaboration.
Special ground 5, in which complaint is made that thе only evidence showing the dеfendant’s possession of the whisky was *774that of an uncorroborated accomplice, is without merit. It is well settled that in misdemeanors the uncorroborated testimony of an aсcomplice or participant in the offense, if believed and acted upon by the jury, will support a conviction. In felony cases a different rule obtains. Dobbs v. State, 44 App. 749, 750 (162 S. E. 845); Branch v. State, 46 Ga. App. 66 (166 S. E. 685).
Judgment reversed.
Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.