Case ID: ga-app_36/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Brotles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17677.
    JONES v. THE STATE.
    A conviction on the charge of having had possession and control of intoxicating liquor was authorized by the evidence.
    Decided January 11, 1927.
    Intoxicating Liquors, 33 O. J. p. 757, n. 71, 74; p. 701, ri. 53; p. 702, n. 55, 61.
    
      Possessing liquor; from city court of Greenville — Judge Bevill. September 3, 1936.
    From the evidence it appeared that the defendant was discovered standing alone in a ditch watching a still in operation at which whisky was being made, and that when he saw that he had been discovered he ran off. Several gallons of whisky and a barrel of beer were found at the same place. It Was about 300 yards from the defendant’s home and nearer to the homes of some other persons. A man on a hill “across from the still” was cutting wood. There was fresh wood on the fire at the still, and just before it was discovered smoke was seen ascending from it in puffs as if the fire had just been rebuilt or wood put on it. The defendant in his statement at the trial said that he saw the smoke and walked down to see what it was, and when he got near the still he heard some one holler “halt,” or “stop,” and he ran because he did not know who it was, and thought it might be the one who was running the still; that he did not know anything about the still or the whisky and had no interest in it.
    
      Jones & Jones, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. F. Hatchett, solicitor, contra.
   Brotles, C. J.

1. In the light of the notes of the trial judge, as set forth in his order approving the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, the first two grounds are without merit; the remaining ground is merely an elaboration of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325), 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

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