McLin v. City of Griffin

• Decision Date: 06 April 1910
• Docket Number: 2,463.
• Citation: 67 S.E. 686,7 Ga.App. 607
• Parties: McLIN v. CITY OF GRIFFIN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

67 S.E. 686

7 Ga.App. 607

McLIN v. CITY OF GRIFFIN.

No. 2,463.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

April 6, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

The finding of the judge of the police court that the defendant had violated the city ordinance in having on hand intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is without any evidence to support it.

Error from Superior Court, Spalding County; E. J. Reagan, Judge.

R. C McLin was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Griffin, and brings error. Reversed.

Cleveland & Goodrich, for plaintiff in error.

W. E H. Searcy, Jr., for defendant in error.

HILL C.J.

Mrs. R C. McLin was convicted in the police court of the city of Griffin of a violation of the city ordinance which prohibits the keeping of intoxicating liquor for sale. She petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which was granted, and on the hearing of the certiorari by the superior court it was overruled.

The only error complained of is that the finding of the police court was without any evidence to support it, and the evidence, briefly stated, is as follows:

Mrs. Culpepper testified that she and her husband were coming from a circus; that her husband put her in a hack, and he walked, and that she followed him, and kept her eye on him, and saw him go into the house of the defendant; that he came out from the back of the house, and had two quart bottles of corn whisky in his hip pocket. He had no whisky at the circus. Witness did not see her husband buy whisky from the defendant, and did not see defendant sell any whisky. A police officer testified that on the same evening he searched the house where the defendant lived, and found two quart bottles of corn whisky in a hand grip; that the husband of the defendant claimed the whisky, and it was turned over to him; that he never saw the defendant's husband but twice, and he was drunk both times. The defendant lived at the house with her husband. Another policeman testified that Mr. Culpepper told him that he got the whisky at the house where the defendant lived, but did not buy it from her; that he did not buy it from any one. This is all the evidence for the state.

The defendant stated in her own behalf that she had never sold any whisky to Mr. Culpepper; that he did come to her house on the evening in question, and bought a bottle of coca-cola and went to the well to get some water; that the whisky found in the house belonged to her husband, who...