midpage

Smith v. StateSmith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 17, 1915
6540
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Broyles
Broyles, J.

1. “Generally the word ‘liquor’ implies intoxicating liquor, and, therefore, proof that a defendant sold ‘liquor’ is sufficient to show, in the absence of adverse testimony, that he sold intoxicating liquor.” Carswell v. State, 7 Ga. App. 198 (66 S. E. 488); Howard v. State, 7 Ga. App. 61 (65 S. E. 1076); Lewis v. State, 6 Ga. App. 779 (65 S. E. 842); Tompkins v. State, 2 Ga. App. 639 (58 S. E. 1111); Wilburn v. State, 8 Ga. App. 28 (68 S. E. 460).

2. Whether the accused believed that he was dealing with an adult and not a minor was a question for the jury. Nobles v. State, 14 Ga. App. 480, 481 (81 S. E. 370).

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Accusation of furnishing liquor to minor; from city court of ‘Wrightsville — Judge Kent. April 3, 1915. Faircloth & Glaxton, for plaintiff in error. B. II. Moye, solicitor, contra.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Sep 17, 1915
Citations: 17 Ga. App. 118; 86 S.E. 283; 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 287; 6540
Docket Number: 6540
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
Log In