Case Name: CARTER v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1921-01-28
Citations: 26 Ga. App. 253
Docket Number: 11686
Parties: CARTER v. THE STATE.
Judges: Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., dissents.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 253–257

Head Matter:
11686.
CARTER v. THE STATE.
1. The admission of testimony as to the finding of stills near the house of the defendant, who was being tried on the charge of selling whisky, was not ground for a new trial, under the facts of this case. Bloodwoktii, J., dissents.
2. No expression or intimation of opinion as to what was proved was made by the judge in stating to the jury that the evidence as to the stills around the defendant’s house was admitted “ as a circumstance, showing what it may, with regard to his (defendant’s) having the liquor that they claim he got somewhere; that it was his and somebody else’s; ” the judge immediately adding: “I don’t state anything about what is proved. ”
3. The instruction as to what would constitute a sale was not ground for a new trial.
4. The admission of testimony as to payment by check was not error.
5. The verdict of guilty was authorized by the evidence.
Decided January 28, 1921.
Indictment for sale of liquor; from Douglas superior court — Judge Irwin. June 15, 1920.
The instruction quoted as to what would constitute a sale was complained of on the grounds that “ there must be a consideration, or something of value given, paid, or promised, moving to the contract or sale, before a sale is completed, and the only consideration that the State attempted to prove was the alleged check; ” and that the charge “ amounted to taking from the jury the right to consider whether there had been a sale, under the evidence, or not, and to virtually stating to the jur-y that there had been a sale.”
The testimony as to payment by check was objected to on the grounds that the check itself was higher and better evidence, that the defendant had not been called upon to produce the check, and that the State had not shown that the check was not in the possession of its witnesses.
John II. Hudson, James & Bedgood, for plaintiff in error.
J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.

Opinion:
Broyles, C. J.
The defendant was charged with selling whisky. Several grounds of the amendment to -the motion for a new trial complain that the court allowed, over the objections of the defendant, two named witnesses to testify to the fact that "stills " had been found near where the defendant lived. In admitting this testimony the court specifically instructed the jury as follows: " I have admitted the evidence of the stills around the defendant's house as a circumstance, showing what it may, with regard to his (defendant's) having the liquor that they claim he got somewhere; that it was his and somebody else's. I don't state anything about what is proved, or anything of that kind, nothing as to what the proof is." The defendant, in his statement to the jury, had said that he-never sold any whisky, because he had nothing to make any out of, and would not know how to make it if he did. Furthermore, another witness testified, with out any objection being interposed, as to the existence of stills near the defendant's house. Under these circumstances the admission of the evidence objected to does not require a new trial.
The court in the instruction to the jury just quoted did not intimate or express an opinion as to what had been proved in the case.
When considered in connection with the entire charge, there was no error, for any reason assigned, in the following excerpt from the charge: " When the State shall have shown you that liquor was delivered and a price agreed upon, I charge you that would complete the sale, irrespective of whether or not there was anything paid at all for it. If the liquor was delivered and a price agreed upon between the parties, that constitutes a sale under the law, and if any money was not paid, nor anything else of value, it would be á complete sale. There has been some evidence admitted about a check,— not the contents of the check, but about a check, and that it was delivered. You will consider that evidence."
The court did not err in allowing witnesses to testify, over the objections of the defendant, that when the defendant sold the whisky he was paid with a check, the court instructing the jury as follows: " There has been some evidence admitted about a check,— not the contents of the check, but about a check, and that it was delivered. You will consider that evidence. I have not allowed the contents of the check to be gone into, for it was not insisted by the State that they have accounted for its non-production. But, whether there was a check passed or whether there was not a cheek passed, if you are satisfied in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant delivered the whisky and that a price was agreed upon between him and the purchaser at the time, as I have charged you, that would complete the sale, whether there was a check passed or whether there was not a check passed, or whether there was any money paid or not. "
The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., dissents.