Cline v. State
| Decision Date | 30 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | 23860. |
| Citation | 174 S.E. 194,49 Ga.App. 16 |
| Parties | CLINE v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence amply supports the verdict of guilty against the defendant, in that he did "have and possess malted fermented, brewed liquors, commonly called home brew manufactured from malt in part, and brewed and fermented liquors and beverages in which maltose is a substantial ingredient, and liquors and beverages and drinks made in imitation of and intended as a substitute for beer, ale and whisky." The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on the general grounds.
2. This court cannot consider the complaint that questions propounded by the court to a witness were an expression or intimation of an opinion as to a material fact in the case, where no motion for a mistrial was made at the time.
3. The remaining assignments of error in the motion for new trial are without merit.
Error from Superior Court, Whitfield County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.
Tom Cline was convicted of possessing home-brew, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Mann & Mann and Luther T. Mann, all of Dalton, for plaintiff in error.
John C Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Dalton, for the State.
1. Tom Cline was indicted by the grand jury, in that he did "have and possess malted, fermented, brewed liquors commonly called home brew, manufactured from malt in part, and brewed and fermented liquors and beverages in which maltose is a substantial ingredient, and liquors and beverages and drinks made in imitation of and intended as a substitute for beer, ale, and whisky." The evidence disclosed that there were found at his home on more than one occasion bottles of a beverage, which looked like beer and smelled like beer and was a brewed liquor made from malt and commonly known as "home brew." There was evidence that the defendant said that the beverage belonged to him. There was also evidence from other persons who lived in the same house with him, who swore that the liquor was not theirs or in their possession. Several cases were found at one time, and it was being kept on ice. The defendant in his statement at the trial denied making the statement that it was his brew or that he had any connection with the same. We are of the opinion that under the Prohibition Law (Ga. L. 1915 [Ex. Sess.] pp. 77, 79, 87; Michie's Pen. Code, §§ 448 (2) and 448 (20) the evidence adduced was ample to show that the defendant was in possession of a beverage which was in violation of the provisions of the law here cited.
2. It is complained in one of the grounds of the motion for new trial "that the court erred in the trial of said case by taking charge of the prosecution of said case, after the solicitor-general had announced that the State rested." There is then set out in this ground a series of questions propounded to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...This not having been done, it is not proper that counsel attempt to take advantage thereof in a motion for new trial. See Cline v. State, 49 Ga.App. 16, 174 S.E. 194, cases cited. Ray v. State, 23 Ga.App. 124, 97 S.E. 555. 3. The evidence supports the verdict. The other assignments of error......
-
Parker v. State
...This not having been done, it is not proper that counsel attempt to take advantage thereof in a motion for new trial. See Cline v. State, 49 Ga. App. 16, 174 S. E. 194, and cases cited. Ray v. State, 23 Ga. App. 124, 97 S. E. 555. 3. The evidence supports the verdict. The other assignments ......
-
Pittman v. State, 50029
...no objection, motion for mistrial, or any other complaint was made below, and these enumerations are without merit. Cline v. State, 49 Ga.App. 16, 17(2), 174 S.E. 194; King v. State, 121 Ga.App. 347, 348(3), 173 S.E.2d 6. Enumerations of error 4, 5, 10, 15 and 22 complain of the admission o......
-
Barrett v. State
...of the trial may not raise the issue for the first time upon appeal. Carlyle v. State, 85 Ga.App. 223(1), 68 S.E.2d 605; Cline v. State, 49 Ga.App. 16(2), 174 S.E. 194. Motions for mistrial should have been made, and these issues called to the court's attention for correction, if needed, or......