Case ID: ga-app_36/html/0090-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17532.
    Murray v. The State.
    Decided November 9, 1926.
    Possession and transportation of liquor; from city court of Way-cross — Judge Crawley. May 20, 1926.
    Intoxicating Liquors, 33 C. J. p. 759, n. 98; p. 761, n. 53.
   Broyles, C. J.

The evidence was not sufficient to authorize the conviction, and the refusal to grant a new trial was en-or.

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodivorth, J., absent on account of illness.

According to the testimony of the sheriff (the only witness for the State), he with others pursuing an automobile, in which were the defendant and Clarence Murray, found in the back seat of the car eight five-gallon glass jugs of whisky in sacks covered by a blanket. Clarence was “under the steering wheel.” The witness testified: “I don’t know who owned the car. . . I can not swear that Hoke Murray [the defendant] had anything to do with the controlling and possession of the ear,” or “owned or controlled any of the whisky. . . I judged it belonged to the two boys. I do not know whether Hoke Murray knew it was whisky in the back seat or not. When we got to the car you could smell it though.” The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that Clarence Murray invited him to go in the automobile just to ride around a little; that Clarence had borrowed the car and drove it, and he (the defendant) did not know and was not told that Clarence was going to get whisky, and did not have anything to do with the whisky, and did not at any time have possession or control of the car; that they turned off a road and went to a house, but he did not know whose house it was and did not help put anything in the car. The defendant’s statement was supported by the testimony of Clarence Murray, who said that he himself bought the whisky at the house at which they stopped, that it was tied up in sacks, and that the defendant was standing off some distance tailsing to a man at that time and did not have anything to do with the whisky.

Bennett & Bennett, John W. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.

W. C. Parker, solicitor, contra.