Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0236-01.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

11223.
    Alexander v. The State.
    Decided April 14, 1920.
    Indictment for misdemeanor; from Taliaferro superior court — Judge Walker. November 28, 1919.
    The indictment charged that on July 15, 1918, Son Alexander “did knowingly permit and allow and did have and possess and locate on his premises apparatus for the distilling and manufacture of spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, and intoxicating liquors and prohibited liquors and beverages.” The sheriff testified, that on July 15, 1918, he and W. C. Chapman went to Son Alexander’s house and then went down to a.spring about 250 yards from his house and found two barrels of mash use.d in making liquor, and a lard-can still for making liquor; that this mash was about 50 feet from the spring up the branch, and the lardean still was some 30 feet from the spring down the branch. “ Son Alexander’s hog pasture ran about half way from the house to the spring, and from there on it was a swamp. I know all this was on Son Alexander’s farm and place, because I had seen him cultivating the land between the house and the spring, and had seen him working on the other side of the spring, down the branch. I don’t know just where Son Alexander’s farm lay, but I had seen him plowing on the southwest side of the branch beyond the spring.” W. 0. Chapman testified that the apparatus was found as stated by the sheriff; he did not know of his own knowledge where Son Alexander’s land or farm ran to, or whether the still apparatus was on his farm, but supposed it was. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, denied that the apparatus found by the officer was on his land, and said that his land went no further than the hog pasture, and he had no control over the land beyond that.
   Bloodworth, J.

The motion for new trial contains no special ground; there is some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court can not interfere.

Judgment affvimied.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

J. A. Beazley, for plaintiff in error.

R. C. Norman, solicitor-general, Alvin C. Golucke, contra.