Borders v. Macon
| Decision Date | 28 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 7440. |
| Citation | 89 S.E. 451,18 Ga.App. 333 |
| Parties | BORDERS v. CITY OF MACON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Testimony that certain premises occupied by the accused were rented from the witness was not inadmissible on the ground that the lease contract or rent notes would be the highest and best evidence.
Permitting a witness to testify, "I have perhaps seen whisky served there to his customers; I don't remember when it was"--was not error. The fact that a witness does not testify positively goes to the probative strength of the testimony, and not to its competency.
A witness may testify to the fact that certain rent notes were paid, without producing record evidence of their payment.
Testimony that certain writing looked like the handwriting of the accused was not inadmissible on the ground that the testimony stated a conclusion. The identification of handwriting usually rests upon the conclusion and opinion of the witness making the identification.
A witness may testify positively as to the signature of another before he qualifies as a handwriting expert. In this case the witness subsequently qualified as a handwriting expert, and the court did not err in allowing him to testify.
Certain rent notes were admitted in evidence, over the objection that they covered a period subsequent to the closing of the premises in question. There was no error in admitting these notes, as the evidence showed that they were a part of a series of notes given for rent for the place in question; the other note having been paid by the defendant according to the evidence.
It was not error to permit a witness to testify that at the place in question he saw The testimony was not inadmissible on the ground that it stated a conclusion; and uncertainty of the witness as to the time referred to affected the probative strength of the evidence and not its admissibility.
It was not improper to permit a witness to testify that he had seen drays "coming there and taking away stuff, apparently whisky; there were empty whisky barrels, and packages wrapped in paper shaped like bottles"; that negroes went and came with packages; that a dray carried off two or three loads of empty barrels; that they were whisky barrels, to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that there was "a pretty strong odor" of whisky at the place. The evidence was not inadmissible as a conclusion, and was not irrelevant and immaterial.
Testimony that the place in question was known as "Borders' place" was not objectionable upon the ground that it was hearsay.
There was no error in allowing a witness to testify that he had hauled some barrels for the accused, and that the accused paid him therefor, though he "could not tell how many gallons to the barrel." This evidence was relevant and material, and was not objectionable upon the ground that the contents of the barrels were not identified as intoxicating liquor.
It was competent for the landlord's agent to testify that he had rented to the Merchants' Club the building in which, it was charged, the accused was conducting a liquor business and that he did not know anybody connected with the club except the accused. This evidence was relevant and material.
A contract of lease of the premises where, it was charged, the accused was conducting his liquor business, signed "Merchants' Club, Macon, Georgia, per R. H Borders" (the accused), was admissible, when taken in connection with the testimony of the landlord's agent, referred to above, and testimony that the signature was that of the accused.
It was proper to permit a drayman to testify that he had taken two barrels for the accused to the building in question, and also that he carried to the same place a little box of case goods, making two dray loads that he carried there, although he testified that he was not personally acquainted with the accused; the witness testifying that "that gentleman [the accused] looks like him." Such testimony was not immaterial and irrelevant, and was not objectionable upon the ground that the witness had not identified the accused as the person employing him, and that it was not shown that the goods were intoxicating liquors.
Testimony showing that a witness hauled several barrels of bulk goods for the accused, although he did not know what was in them that the accused paid him, and that the witness delivered the goods to the place kept by the club named...
To continue reading
Request your trial