Cook v. State
| Decision Date | 12 January 1906 |
| Citation | 124 Ga. 653,53 S.E. 104 |
| Parties | COOK. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A witness, sought to be impeached by proof of contradictory statements, cannot be supported by proof that he made elsewhere other statements consistent with his testimony on the stand.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 50, Cent. Dig. Witnesses, §§ 1260, 1261.]
A sale on a credit is a complete sale; and a sale of whisky without a license, on an agreement that the purchaser will pay for it with a hog, is contrary to the criminal law.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 29, Cent. Dig. Intoxicating Liquors, § 160.]
An admission or confession which apparently has reference to the matter under investigation is admissible in evidence, although it does not in terms state the time and place to which it refers.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, §§ 1202-1211.]
(Syllabus by the Court)
Error from City Court of Wrightsville; Wm. Faircloth, Judge.
Handy Cook was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and brings error. Reversed.
Handy Cook was tried in the city court of Wrightsville, under an accusation charging him with selling whisky without a license. After conviction, he moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted.
Z. B. Hicks and E. L. Stephens, for plaintiff in error.
B. B. Blount, for the State.
LUMPKIN, J. (after stating the facts). 1. "Che principal witness on behalf of the state was Charles Bennett, who testified that he bought whisky from the defendant in July, 1905. In the course of the examination it was developed that he had made to another person a statement conflicting with his evidence on the stand, and denying that he had bought whisky from Cook. Thereupon themm
state, over objection, introduced evidence to show that he had stated to two other witnesses that he had bought whisky from Cook and owed him for it. This was error. It has sometimes been held that, where an effort has been made to impeach a witness by proof of statements inconsistent with his testimony given on the stand, it is admissible to sustain him by showing that on other occasions he made statements consistent with such testimony. But other courts hold the contrary position. 1 Greenl. Ev. (16th Ed.) § 469 (b). The latter ruling, in our opinion, rests upon the sounder basis of reasoning. As said by Mr. Greenleaf, in referring to statements consistent with the testimony of the witness as being explanatory of statements not consistent with it, made at other times: In this state the point has been directly passed upon in several cases. Georgia R. Co. v. Oaks, 52 Ga. 410 (7); Fus-sell v. State, 93 Ga. 450, 21 S. E. 97; Knight v. State, 114 Ga. 48, 39 S. E. 928, 88 Am. St. Rep. 17 (3); Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern R. Co. v. Strickland, 116 Ga. 439, 42 S. E. 864. The circumstances under which such evidence might become admissible were discussed in McCord v. State, 83 Ga. 521, 531, 10 S. E. 437. If it were sought to show that the witness in a certain conversation made statements inconsistent with his testimony, it would be competent to prove all that he said in that conversation which would throw light on the question of whether his statements were in fact inconsistent or not.
2. Error is alleged on the ground that the court charged that if the accused delivered to one Bennett whisky at an agreed price, and Bennett promised to pay for it by delivering to the accused a hog, the sale would be complete, although the purchaser may not have made the payment. We cannot assent to the proposition that the sale of whisky on a credit is no sale at all. It would introduce an innovation into the law to declare that nothing was sold until paid for. Nor can we perceive that the fact that the medium of payment agreed upon was a hog would alter the principle. Selling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. La Bar
...v. Graham, 2 Colo. App. 210, 29 Pac. 1007;Connor v. People, 18 Colo. 373, 33 Pac. 159,25 L. R. A. 341, 36 Am. St. Rep. 295;Cook v. State, 124 Ga. 653, 53 S. E. 104;State v. Porter, 74 Iowa, 623, 38 N. W. 514;Chicago, etc., v. Matthieson, 212 Ill. 292, 72 N. E. 443;Edwards v. Commonwealth, 1......
-
State v. Bar
... ... 271, 93 S.W. 983, 8 Ann. Cas. 476; ... People v. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85; Mason v ... Vestal, 88 Cal. 396, 26 P. 213, 22 Am. [131 Minn. 434] ... St. 310; Davis v. Graham, 2 Colo.App. 210, 29 P ... 1007; Connor v. People, 18 Colo. 373, 33 P. 159, 25 ... L.R.A. 341, 36 Am. St. 295; Cook v. State, 124 Ga ... 653, 53 S.E. 104; State v. Porter, 74 Iowa 623, 38 ... N.W. 514; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Matthieson, 212 ... Ill. 292, 72 N.E. 443; Edwards v. Commonwealth, 145 ... Ky. 560, 140 S.W. 1046; Ware v. Ware, 8 Me. 42; ... Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 10 Gray (Mass.) 485; ... ...
-
Brown v. State
... ... liquor. The presumption, however, was rebuttable. This was an ... admission of specific facts which, together with the legal ... presumption deemed to exist, constituted all of the essential ... elements of the offense of having, possessing, and ... controlling such prohibited liquors. Cook v. State, ... 124 Ga. 653, 655(3), 53 S.E. 104; Webb v. State, 73 ... Ga.App. 748(2, 3), 38 S.E.2d 54; Byars v. State, 73 ... Ga.App. 727, 38 S.E.2d 53 ... The ... summation of what we have said above seems to us to be that ... when the defendant said that the whiskey was ... ...
-
Brown v. State
... ... The presumption, however, was rebuttable. This was an admission of specific facts which, together with the legal presumption deemed to exist, constituted all of the essential elements of the offense of having, possessing, and controlling such prohibited liquors. Cook v. State, 124 Ga. 653, 655(3), 53 S.E. 104; Webb v. State, 73 Ga.App. 748(2, 3), 38 S.E.2d 54; Byars v. State, 73 Ga.App. 727, 38 S.E.2d 53. The summation of what we have said above seems to us to be that when the defendant said that the whiskey was his without stating anything more this was ... ...