Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 13 April 1921
• Docket Number: 12158.
• Citation: 107 S.E. 166,26 Ga.App. 635
• Parties: JONES v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

107 S.E. 166

26 Ga.App. 635

JONES v. STATE.

No. 12158.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

April 13, 1921

Error from Superior Court, Whitfield County; M. C. Tarver, Judge.

Charlie Jones was convicted of having possession, etc., of intoxicating liquors, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Geo. G Glenn, of Dalton, for plaintiff in error.

Joe M Lang, Sol. Gen., of Calhoun, for the State.

BLOODWORTH J.

1. "The venue can be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. Dumas v. State, 62 Ga. 59 (4). Evidence as to the venue, though slight, is sufficient, where there is no conflicting evidence. Johnson v. State, 62 Ga. 300 (1), 301; Porter v. State, 76 Ga. 658 (2) 660." Towler v. State, 24 Ga.App. 167 (2, 3) 100 S.E. 42. Under the above rulings the evidence as to the venue in this case is sufficient. It was shown that the liquor was procured "somewhere on the west side of the county," and at the house of defendant, which was not over three miles from a certain place, and that from that place to the county line it is something like 6 1/2 to 7 miles.

2. It was not error for the court to admit "as a circumstance to be considered by the jury," the following evidence:

"I had seen Mr. Jones [the accused] before this time [the date that the accused was charged with possessing liquor], and made some arrangements of some kind with him--I don't remember just exactly what they were--about getting some liquor; seems that he told me that he knew where he could get some."

3. The evidence that before the trial the accused forfeited his appearance bond was properly admitted. "While not conclusive, an order of the trial court forfeiting the defendant's recognizance on his failure to appear for trial is some evidence of his flight, and is admissible in evidence as a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining his guilt or innocence." State v. Kesner, 72 Kan. 88 (3), 82 P. 720. See Davis v. State, 11 Ga.App. 804 (3), 76 S.E. 391.

4. The Prohibition Act of 1917 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 8) provides that--

"It shall be unlawful for any corporation, firm, person or individual to receive from any common carrier, corporation, firm, person or individual, or to have, control, or possess, in this state, any of said enumerated liquors or beverages whether intended for personal use or otherwise, save as is hereinafter excepted."

Complaint is made that the judge charged the jury:

"If you find from the evidence that on any date or about the date mentioned in the bill of indictment, or within two years prior to the date of the return of the bill of indictment, the defendant, in this county, was in the possession, custody, or control of any quantity of intoxicating liquors, it would be your duty to convict; otherwise to acquit."

The use of the word "custody," in this charge, is not error which requires the grant of a new trial. In Roe & McDowell v Doe ex dem....