59 Ga. App. 498 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1939
J. T. Sturman was charged with the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor, the accusation being in two -counts. Count 1 alleged in part that the defendant did “have, control, and possess . . whisky in bottles at Exchange Hotel and Broad Street. . .” Count 2 alleged in part that the defendant did “have, control, and possess . . whisky in bottles at 11 Pryor Street. . He was found guilty oh both counts, in the criminal court of Fulton County. His certiorari was overruled, and he excepted. One contention in the brief of the plaintiff in error is that the verdict and sentence were erroneous, because the “venue of the action was never clearly established.” There is no distinct assignment of error in the petition for certiorari on any alleged failure to prove venue. It is now too late to make this complaint. Code, § 19-404. Nor is a general assignment of error sufficient. Harvey v. Carrollton, 18 Ga. App. 54 (2) (88 S. E. 798). Another complaint in the brief is on the admission by the trial court of evidence as to other previous transactions connecting the accused with violation of the law relative to possessing whisky. This point was likewise not raised in the record, and can not now be considered by this court. See Grant v. State, 48 Ga. App. 162 (172 S. E. 89); Callaway v. Atlanta, 6 Ga. App. 354 (2) (64 S. E. 1105), and cit.
It is urged that the whisky was not found on the premises of the Exchange Hotel, and that there was a variance between the allegations of the indictment (“at the Exchange Hotel”) and the proof. Taking the evidence as a whole, the nearness of the whisky storeroom, located on the top of a building adjoining the hotel; the description of the witnesses as to how it was accessible to the window of the Exchange Hotel; the proof that the defendant’s whisky business had been carried on from the Exchange Hotel, he being the
The other assignments of error are plainly without merit. The theory on which the State's prosecution proceeded was that the accused was “the man higher up,” and the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to warrant a conviction on both counts. The judge did not err in overruling the certiorari. Mays v. State, 47 Ga. App. 55 (169 S. E. 683).
Judgment affirmed.