Doster v. State

• Decision Date: 20 November 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 997,93 Ga. 43
• Parties: DOSTER v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 997

93 Ga. 43

DOSTER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 20, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. As ruled in Mathews v. State, (this term,) 18 S.E. 996, the authority to grant licenses to sell spirituous liquors in Putnam county is vested exclusively in the commissioners of roads and revenues of that county.

2. Delivery, whether made by the seller or his employe, if requisite to complete a sale the contract for which, with payment of the purchase price, was made elsewhere, is contrary to law if the seller has no license authorizing him to sell in the county where the delivery takes place. In such case the sale is to be treated as made, not where the contract was entered into, and the purchase money paid, but where it was completed by delivery.

3. The propounding of a leading question to a witness is no cause for a new trial, especially when the answer is harmless.

4. It is the duty of the presiding judge to instruct the jury substantially in the terms of the statute, touching the prisoner's statement, when he makes a statement, and in no case should this be omitted; but where the statement is entirely silent touching one of the transactions covered by the evidence for the state, and the proof as to that transaction is uncontroverted and sufficient to warrant and uphold the conviction, the omission will not require a new trial. If, after giving the prisoner the full benefit of his statement by allowing it to outweigh all the evidence opposing it, or which it opposes, the verdict is correct, it may be left to stand.

5. There was no error in overruling the certiorari.

Error from superior court, Putnam county; W. F. Jenkins, Judge.

J. M Doster was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors unlawfully, and brings error. Affirmed.

H. A Jenkins, Calvin George, and Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error.

H. G. Lewis, Sol. Gen., Hines, Shubrick & Felder, and J. S. Turner, for the State.

LUMPKIN J.

1. Under the ruling in Mathews v. State, (decided this term.) 18 S.E. 996, there was no error in overruling the demurrer to the indictment. It was held in that case that the authority to grant licenses to sell spirituous liquors in Putnam county was vested exclusively in the board of commissioners of roads and revenues, and that it was a misdemeanor to sell such liquors in any quantity in that county without a license from that board.

2. In one view of the evidence introduced by the state, the jury were warranted in finding that the accused, whose place of business was in Morgan county, had in that county bargained to one Tom Davis a quantity of whisky at a price agreed upon and paid; that the whisky so contracted for was not separated from the general stock of the accused, or delivered to Davis but it was understood between the parties that the same was to be sent by express to Davis in Eatonton, which place was...