84 Ga. 326 | Ga. | 1890
Paschal was tried in the county court of Houston on an accusation charging him with violating the local option law of force in that county, by selling spirituous liquors. A jury being waived, he was found guilty by the judge and sentenced. He sued out a certiorari to the superior court, alleging certain errors of law, and also that the finding was not warranted by the evidence. At the hearing of the certiorari the same was overruled, and this writ of error was brought. In the argument here the only point insisted upon (the others being waived) was that touching the sufficiency of the evidence.
1. A witness testified that a few days before or after Christmas, 1888, Paschal came to him at his shop in Port Valley, Houston county, and told him that he (Paschal) wanted to get witness’s buggy to go out to a grocery in Macon county for some whiskey, and if witness would let him have the buggy, he would bring him (witness) a bottle of whiskey; that there was to be free whiskey at the grocery that day. Witness let him have the buggy, and on his return Paschal delivered to witness a bottle of whiskey containing perhaps a quart. The witness added that he did not expect Paschal to bring the whiskey, and would have let him have the buggy without the agreement to do so if Paschal had so applied for it. It seems to us that this transaction amounted to a hiring of the buggy and paying for the same in whiskey, and that the county judge was well
2. The same witness testified that -upon Christmas morning, 1888, and upon another occasion during the same year, he went to Paschal and asked him if he could not get him (witness) some whiskey. Paschal replied that he thought he could. Witness gave him twenty-five cents, and he (Paschal) brought witness a small flask of whiskey, twenty-five cents worth. About the same thing happened each time, and it took place in Houston county. Witness did not know where Paschal got the whiskey, or whether he made anything by the transaction. There was some- other evidence tending to show that Paschal might have dealt in whiskey, but it is not of sufficient importance to
Judgment affirmed.