Grusin v. State

• Decision Date: 20 November 1911
• Docket Number: 3,682.
• Citation: 75 S.E. 350,10 Ga.App. 149
• Parties: GRUSIN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

75 S.E. 350

10 Ga.App. 149

GRUSIN v. STATE.

No. 3,682.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

November 20, 1911

Syllabus by the Court.

There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

The evidence amply authorizes the verdict of guilty, and no error of law appears.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

In a prosecution for violating the prohibition law, testimony of a police officer that he gave a person $1 to see if he could buy some whisky, and that he went and returned with a bottle of whisky and another bottle half full, was admissible in connection with testimony of the person referred to as to having delivered the whisky.

The allowance of a leading question is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.

Reopening a case for the reception of additional evidence is discretionary with the trial court.

Where a warrant for arrest for the sale of intoxicating liquors was issued on February 20th, testimony that defendant sold whisky to the witness on February 20th in connection with his positive testimony that the sale was on Sunday, when in fact the calendar showed that that date was on Monday, was admissible; the jury being authorized to believe that he was correct as to the day of the week, but that the sale was on the 19th.

In a prosecution for violating the prohibition law, an instruction that if the jury found that defendant carried on any mercantile business or a "near beer" establishment and that he had prohibited liquors at his "near beer" saloon, he would be guilty of violating the law and that that makes the crime complete, was not objectionable as an intimation of opinion as to the facts by the last statement.

Error from City Court of Richmond County; W. F. Eve, Judge.

J Grusin was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and brings error. Affirmed.

Isaac S. Peebles, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

J. C. C. Black, Sol., and John M. Graham, for the State.

RUSSELL J.

Grusin was convicted under an accusation charging him with having violated the prohibition law by selling intoxicating liquors, and by keeping such liquors on hand at his place of business. He excepts to the refusal of a new trial.

As to the general grounds of the motion for a new trial, it is sufficient to say that there was proof that on the day alleged in the accusation a policeman, who searched the grocery store and adjoining "near beer" saloon of the accused, found in both places a large quantity of whisky in bottles, enough to make a wagon load, and that the accused begged him not to take it all, but to take "just enough to make out a good case," and that others testified to both the keeping and the frequent selling of intoxicating liquors by the accused at his place of business.

The next ground of the motion for a new trial is that the court refused the defendant a continuance upon the following showing: The defendant testified that he was arrested and was required to sign two appearance bonds, one for his appearance before the recorder of the city of Augusta on the charge of violating the city ordinance as to keeping liquor on hand for illegal sale, the other for his appearance at the city court on the charge of violating the state prohibition law; that he understood that his trial before the recorder was for the purpose of determining not only as to violation of the city ordinance, but also as to whether there was sufficient evidence to bind him over to the city court, the recorder being also a committing officer; that the trial before the recorder resulted in his dismissal, and he was under the impression that this dismissal carried with it a dismissal of the state charge; that at the March term of the city court at which the motion for a continuance was made, he looked over a list of the cases assigned for that term, published in one of the daily newspapers of the city, and his case was not listed there; that he was notified the day before the trial that his case would come up about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and he immediately employed counsel to defend him; that "there was a witness, Annie Spires, in Columbia county, Ga., who was present on the Sunday that John Bird contended that he bought whisky from defendant, and who would have testified that defendant sold no whisky, but he had not had an opportunity to procure said witness at the present trial, and had not had an opportunity to prepare his defense." The defendant's counsel stated that he could not safely go to trial, owing to the fact that he was employed the day before in the afternoon, and had not had an opportunity to examine the witnesses. Although the accusation had been drawn a week before the trial, and the case had been assigned for trial, the solicitor did not sign the accusation until the...