Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 28178. |
| Parties | MORGAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J L. Smith, of Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
Robt. D. Tisinger, Sol., of Carrollton, for defendant in error.
The defendant was convicted of possessing unstamped whisky, in Carroll County. The evidence was that the sheriff and his deputies raided the defendant's home in the early morning. The sheriff went in the front door and found the defendant in bed, asleep, in a front room. A deputy went to the back door and there found the defendant's seventeen year old son and a negro man on the door steps. He went inside the house into the kitchen and found the defendant's wife there. There were two gallons of whisky in the sink, one container being a tin can and the other a glass jug. The defendant's wife took the whisky and put it in a box with a lid on it, back of the stove. The defendant's mother and sister lived in the house with him. There was a case of 24 pint bottles which had previously contained whisky, on the back porch. The defendant introduced the negro man who was there at the time of the raid, and he swore that he had been working for the defendant around his home for fourteen years and lived on his place right near the defendant's home; that he bought the whisky that morning only a short time before this from some man he did not know who said he lived in Alabama and who came by there in a car loaded with whisky; that he carried the whisky to the defendant's house and that at the time he bought it it was in two tin cans but that he had poured the contents of one of the cans into a glass jug, and that the defendant did not know the whisky was there and did not authorize him to buy it nor did he furnish the money to pay for it and that this was the first time he, the witness, had ever carried whisky to defendant's home to change containers.
The finding of two gallons of unstamped whisky in the defendant's home created a legal presumption that he was the owner and possessor thereof. This presumption was rebuttable. The jury evidently disbelieved the negro witness who swore that he had carried the liquor to the defendant's home without the defendant's knowledge or consent. This witness also swore that the whisky he carried there was on the back porch and not in the kitchen where it was found by the officers. We can not say that this testimony of this witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haney v. State
...16 S.E.2d 916. See, also Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga.App. 286, 190 S.E. 48; Autrey v. State, 18 Ga.App. 13(2), 88 S.E. 715; Morgan v. State, 62 Ga.App. 493, 8 S.E.2d 694; Thomas v. State, 64 Ga.App. 315, 13 92. The case being reversed on the special ground, it is unnecessary to discuss the ge......
-
Haney v. State, 31749.
...50(2), 16 S.E.2d 916; Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga.App. 286, 190 S.E. 48; Autrey v. State, 18 Ga.App. 13(2), 88 S.E. 715; Morgan v. State, 62 Ga.App. 493, 8 S.E.2d 694; Thomas v. State, 64 Ga. App. 315, 13 S.E.2d 92; Young v. State, 22 Ga.App. 111(2), 95 S.E. 478. Error from Superior Court, Fl......
-
Roberson v. State, 31707.
...that of the head of the family, but this is a presumption of fact which is rebuttable. The court should have so charged. Morgan v. State, 62 Ga.App. 493, 8 S.E.2d 695; Thomas v. State, 64 Ga.App. 315, 13 S.E.2d 92; Gray v. State, 66 Ga.App. 50, 16 S.E.2d 916; Haney v. State, 44 S.E.2d 492. ......
-
Gray v. State, 29186.
... ... However, this inference is rebuttable. Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga.App. 286, 190 S.E. 48; Autrey v. State, 18 Ga.App. 13[2], 88 S.E. 715; Morgan v ... State, 62 Ga.App. 493, 8 S.E.2d 694; Thomas v. State, 64 Ga.App. 315, 13 S.E.2d 92; Lewis v. State, 6 Ga.App. 205, 64 S.E. 701. 3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of possessing whisky not bearing the required State revenue stamps.Judgment affirmed.BROYLES, ... ...