Bonner v. State
| Decision Date | 22 October 1907 |
| Docket Number | (No. 733.) |
| Citation | 58 S.E. 1123,2 Ga. App. 711 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BONNER v. STATE. |
On a trial for the unlawful sale of spirituous liquors, evidence that the accused had on several occasions received packages or boxes through the express office, with physical marks thereon indicating that their contents was whisky, is relevant and admissible.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 29, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 293, 295.]
The charge of the court upon which error was assigned was objectionable for the reasons stated in the opinion.
A verdict wholly unsupported by any evidence must be set aside as contrary to law. (Syllabus by the Court)
Error from Superior Court, Early County; W. C. Worrill, Judge.
Davis Bonner was convicted of selling whisky in prohibition territory, and he brings error. Reversed.
Park & Collins, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Laing, Sol. Gen.. R. R. Arnold, and J. B. Ridley, for the State.
HILL, C. J. Davis Bonner was convicted of the offense of selling whisky in Early county, where the sale of spirituous liquors is prohibited by law. His motion for a new trial being overruled, he brings the case to this court.
Error is assigned upon the ruling of thecourt in admitting, over the objection of the defendant, the following testimony: "That on several occasions packages or boxes had come through the express office addressed to Davis Bonner, and on looking through the cracks of the boxes bottles were seen that looked like they might be quarts of whisky; that on two different occasions the defendant, Davis Bonner, had carried from the express office two large boxes weighing about 60 lbs., having printed thereon 'Seventy-two half pints White Oak Whisky, Chattanooga.' " We think the testimony was admissible as against the objection that it was irrelevant and immaterial, while it was not a violation of law to purchase whisky outside of the county and ship it thereto, yet, where the defendant is charged with selling whisky in the county in violation of the statute, evidence that he was receiving whisky was a relevant fact in connection with the charge. Considered alone, of course, it would not be sufficient and would have to be supplemented by evidence showing that a sale had been consummated in the county by the defendant.
The following charge we think is justly assigned as error: "If you believe, gentlemen of the jury, that the defendant, Davis Bonner, received of Dock Knight money and went off and in a short time returned and furnished Dock Knight with whisky, that would make him guilty, unless he has given the jury satisfactory information as to how he got the whisky, and that his connection therewith was lawful." We think that these facts would be evidence of more or less probative value to be determined by the jury. But the charge that this fact "would make him guilty, " even if unexplained...
To continue reading
Request your trial