George v. State, (No. 18470.)

• Decision Date: 14 December 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 18470.)
• Parties: GEORGE. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

37 Ga.App. 513

140 S.E. 903

GEORGE.

v.STATE.

(No. 18470.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Dec. 14, 1927.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from City Court of Valdosta; J. G. Cranford, Judge.

Charlie George was convicted of possessing whisky, and he brings error. Affirmed.

W. E. Perry, of Valdosta, for plaintiff in error.

R. G. Dickerson, Sol., and Little & Dicker-son, all of Valdosta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

LUKE, J. [1, 2] 1. "In this state the husband is recognized by law as the head of his family, and, where he and his wife reside together, the legal presumption is that thehouse and all the household effects, including any intoxicating liquors, belong to the husband as the head of the family. This presumption of course is rebuttable." Isom v. State, 32 Ga. App. 75, 122 S. E. 722. See, also, Hendrix v. State, 24 Ga. App. 56, 100 S. E. 55; Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111, 95 S. E. 478. Applying the foregoing rule of law to the evidence as a whole, and to the defendant's statement that "other people live in that house besides me, " the jury had the right to conclude that the defendant was in the possession, custody, and control of the 77 pints of whisky found in the house occupied by his wife and children; and this is true notwithstanding defendant's assertion that his mother-in-law rented the house, and that his cousin lived in it, and that the defendant himself "did not live in Valdosta for the past eight years for more than about two weeks at a time." It follows that the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial cannot be reversed upon the general grounds of the motion.

2. While the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, might have applied the rule of law set out in Isom v. State, supra, more aptly to the different phases of the case, including the contentions made by the defendant in his statement, yet in the light of the charge as a whole, and of the fact that there was no request for fuller or more specific instructions, this court declines to hold that either of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial discloses reversible error. See Reynolds v. State, 23 Ga. App. 369, 9S S. E. 246.

Judgment affirmed.

BROYLES, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, J., concur.