Case ID: ga-app_34/html/0777-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

16930.
    BARTENFIELD v. THE STATE.
    A conviction of transporting intoxicating liquor was not authorized by the evidence.
    Decided January 12, 1926.
    Indictment for transporting liquor; from Catoosa superior court —Judge Tarver. September 12, 1925.
    From the evidence it appears that intoxicating liquor was carried in an automobile licensed in the name of the defendant. A witness for the defendant testified that he sold the automobile to a third person, and applied, at that person’s request, for a license for it in the name of the defendant; that the witness, or his bookkeeper, signed the defendant’s name to the application. It did not appear that the defendant knew of this, and the license itself was the only evidence introduced to connect him with the automobile or the transportation of the liquor.
    
      Stafford R. Brooke, Oliver R. Hardin, T. 0. Head, for plaintiff in error.
    
      O. 0. Pittman, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

The evidence by which the State seeks to connect the accused with the crime charged in the indictment is entirely circumstantial, and is not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.