17 S.E.2d 82 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1941
The evidence was circumstantial and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused.
As we view the case it is unnecessary to deal with the special grounds. From the evidence as related above it is readily discerned that the case against the defendant is wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. The court very properly and correctly gave this principle in charge to the jury. The question of joint occupancy was material, and the court gave this principle in charge to the jury. There was no evidence to show actual knowledge on the part of the defendant of the whisky seized. The evidence was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. Lunceford v.Washington,
Judgment reversed. Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J.,concur.