Case ID: ga_95/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Phillips v. The State.
    Lumpkin, J. — 1. Under the facts disclosed by the record, there was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.
    2. ’Where one, by the use of his capital or credit, aids in procuring and furnishing whisky to another for the purpose of being unlawfully sold by. the latter, and it is so sold, and the former, by the agreement for conducting the business, is to receive, and does actually receive, a given per cent, on the cost of all the whisky so furnished and sold, they are both guilty of selling the liquor unlawfully, whether under the terms of such agreement a technical partnership between them existed or not.
    3. Where, in sentencing one convicted of a misdemeanor, the court imposes the maximum fine authorized by law for that offense, the punishment is not rendered excessive because the court adjudges that the accused shall also pay, in addition to the fine, the costs of the prosecution.
    4. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
    October 15,1894.
    Indictment for unlawful sale of liquor. Before Judge Cobb. City court of Clarke county. June term, 1894.
    G. O. Thomas and J. J. Strickland, for plaintiff in error.
   Judgment affirmed.