Gordon v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1910 |
| Docket Number | 2,532. |
| Citation | 67 S.E. 893,7 Ga.App. 691 |
| Parties | GORDON v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Immediately preceding the trial of the plaintiff in error for the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, the defendant in another case, on trial for the same offense, stated that he had bought from plaintiff in error the whisky which he was charged with selling. This statement was made in the presence of the jurors who subsequently convicted the plaintiff in error. Held, if the statement was good cause of challenge at all, the challenge should have been made to the polls, and not to the array. Paulk v. State, 2 Ga.App. 662, 58 S.E. 1109; Bryan v. State, 124 Ga. 79, 52 S.E. 298, and cases cited.
The employment of a detective by the sheriff to ferret out and report violations of the prohibition law is not contrary to law or the public policy of the state. The testimony of the detective is competent evidence; his avocation for hire affecting his credit as a witness. Union v. State, 7 Ga.App. 27, 66 S.E. 24.
It was not erroneous to admit in evidence a bottle containing a portion of the whisky which a witness testified he had bought from the defendant, poured in the bottle, and delivered to the sheriff, because the bottle had been labeled by the sheriff "corn whisky," and marked by the sheriff for identification with the name of the defendant; the evidence positively proving that the liquor in the bottle was in fact corn whisky, and was bought from the defendant, and the sheriff testifying that he put the defendant's name on the bottle, subsequently to the purchase, solely for identification. The evidence as thus explained could not have misled the jury or hurt the defendant.
The credibility of the two witnesses for the state who testified to sales made by the defendant was exclusively a question for the jury. The individual members of this court may not credit the evidence, in view of the good character of the defendant and the bad character of the witnesses; but the jury did, and the trial judge approved the verdict; and, as no error of law appears, this court cannot interfere.
Error from City Court of Forsyth; W. M. Clark, Judge.
Leonidas Gordon was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquors, and brings error. Affirmed.
Willingham & Willingham, for plaintiff in error.
R. L. Williams, Jr., Sol., for the State.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial