Hollingsworth v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Parties: Hollingsworth. vs. The State of Georgia.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

79 Ga. 605

Hollingsworth. vs. The State of Georgia.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1887.

Verdict. New Trial. Witness. Practice in Superior Court. Evidence. Before Judge Van Epps. City Court of Atlanta. June Term, 1887.

A policeman, standing on the sidewalk opposite defendant's wine-room, saw one Brown in there pass somethingto defendant, and receive from the latter a flask, and then leave the place with a companion. They were followed into an alley by this policeman and two others, and Brown showed the flask to that officer, on request. It contained corn whiskey. Brown remarked that it was " the genuine stuff." When introduced as a witness for the State, he denied that it was corn whiskey or intoxicating, but said he thought it was orange juice with peppermint; that he got it from defendant for a tonic; and that he never bought any whiskey of defendant. Another policeman corroborated the one first introduced. The defendant introduced no evidence, but stated merely that he never sold whiskey to any one, but let Brown have orange juice. He was found guilty, and moved for a new trial on the grounds (1) that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; (2) because the court allowed the policeman to be recalled as a witness after his examination had been concluded, and several other witnesses introduced, his evidence not being in rebuttal; and (3) because the court refused to charge that the State was bound by its own witnesses, unless its attorney showed to the court that he had been entrapped by such witnesses, which had not been done. (Besides Brown, several witnesses were introduced by the State, and they testified that they never bought any whiskey or saw any bought of defendant.)

The new trial was refused, and the defendant excepted.

R. J. Jordan, for plaintiff in error.

H. C. Glenn, solicitor city court, for the State.

Simmons, Justice.

It appears from the record in this case that an accusation was filed in the city court of Atlanta against Hollingsworth, for the sale of spirituous liquors to one Brown, contrary to the law of the State prevailing in Fulton county. On the trial of the case, the jury found the de-fendant guilty. A motion was made for new trial upon the several grounds set out in the record, which was overruled by the presiding judge; to which ruling the defendant excepted, and brings the case to this court for review.

1. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the jury. The judge below was satisfied...