Case ID: ga_147/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beck, J. Eish, O. J., and Atkinson, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Head v. The State. Farrell v. The State. Massart v. The State. Raskin v. The State.
    Nos. 187, 201, 204, 207.
    June 13, 1917.
    Accusations of misdemeanors. Before Judge Black. City court of Bichmond county. December 6, 1916. Before Judge Bourke. City court of Savannah. July 1, and August 8, 1916.
    
      Richard L. Chambers, Samuel F. Carling ton, Bouhan & Herzog, Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, and Robert L. Golding, for plaintiffs in error. W. Inman Curry, solicitor, and Walter C. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.
   Beck, J.

1. The constitutional 'questions made in these ■ cases are controlled adversely to the plaintiffs in error by the decisions and rulings made in Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547 (91 S. E. 561), and Bunger v. State, 146 Ga. 672 (92 S. E. 72).

2. In those cases raising the objection that the evidence was insufficient, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial based upon that ground.

3. Grounds of the motion for a new trial not urged in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are considered as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, eoscept

Eish, O. J., and Atkinson, J.,

who, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Atkinson, J., in the case of Delaney v. Plunkett (supra), dissent from the opinion of the majority in these cases so far as they relate to intoxicating liquors owned and possessed before the first day of May, 1916.