Crapp v. State

• Decision Date: 15 January 1919
• Docket Number: 9783.
• Parties: CRAPP v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

98 S.E. 174

23 Ga.App. 257

CRAPP v. STATE.

No. 9783.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

January 15, 1919

Syllabus by the Court.

This case has been transferred back to this court by the Supreme Court, under the ruling of that court that the assignments of error involving constitutional grounds were too indefinite to be considered. See Crapp v. State, 95 S.E. 993.

The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; and the special ground of the motion for a new trial, assigning error upon the court's refusal to charge the jury as requested, is without merit.

Error from City Court of Sylvester; C. W. Monk, Judge.

Proceeding by the State of Georgia against Adam Crapp, to condemn and sell an automobile used in conveying intoxicating liquors. Verdict for the State, motion for new trial overruled, and defendant excepts and brings error. Affirmed.

G. R Nottingham and L. D. Passmore, both of Sylvester, for plaintiff in error.

Clyde Forehand, Sol., of Sylvester, for the State.

JENKINS J. (after stating the facts as above).

In our opinion, the request to charge does not contain a correct statement of the explicit terms of the law, nor does it conform to what is its plainly expressed purpose and intention. It is insisted by counsel for the defendant that construing these portions of the act in connection with the title, it must be seen that it was not the intention of the Legislature to condemn a vehicle where the carrying of whisky was merely incidental, and that the law condemns the vehicle only when it is being used for the primary purpose of transporting or conveying liquors. In other words, if the vehicle was used for the primary purpose of conveying or transporting liquors, the provisions of the act would be operative; but if the liquors were thus being merely incidentally transported, and only because the vehicle was at the time being used for another and different purpose, then the penalty would not obtain. So much of the title of the act referred to as is material to this case is as follows:

"An act to amend and supplement the prohibition laws of this state; to make it unlawful to transport, ship, or deliver in this state, whether from without or from within the state, any spirituous, vinous, malt, or fermented liquors, or other intoxicating liquors or beverages, except alcohol and wine under certain restrictions and limitations * * * to provide for the seizure, condemnation and sale of property used in violation of this act, and for the

...