Case ID: ga-app_35/html/0357-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17116.
    Anderson v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 17 O. J. p. 271, n. 41.
    Decided May 12, 1926.
    Conviction of possession of liquor; from city court of Keidsville —Judge Cowart. December 14, 1925.
    The special ground referred to in the decision is as follows: “4. She [the defendant] says that at the end of the charge of the court her counsel orally requested the court to charge the jury that under the law of this State when the husband and wife is living together in the same house and occupying the same bedroom that the husband is presumed to be in possession of all things in the house and the said bedroom, and her counsel made this request because he had listened at the charge and had not heard the above principle of law given to the jury, and the court replied that he had already covered that point in his charge to the jury by charging that husband was head of the family and presumed to be in possession, and declined to charge on-that point any further. This amendment is offered because the court reporter that reported the case is unable to read her notes on the charge and can not write out the charge, and this defendant desires that the record in this case should show that the above principle of law was charged to the jury, and she desires this to appear, for she contends that the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court.”
   Bloodworth, J.

There is no merit in the special ground of the motion for a new trial, and this court will not say that there is no evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

H. II. Elders, for plaintiff in error. M. 17. Eason, solicitor, contra.