Case Name: Neville v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1919-01-09
Citations: 23 Ga. App. 144
Docket Number: 10124
Parties: Neville v. The State.
Judges: Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
10124.
Neville v. The State.
Decided January 9, 1919.
Indictment for felony; from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. September 10, 1918.
Herbert Neville was found guilty under an indictment charging him with having distilled and made alcoholic, spirituous, and malt liquors. It was testified that a still was found on a branch about a hundred yards back of the house of his father; and he stated that he had helped his older brother to move it there, but that he had nothing further to do with it. Six barrels which had had whisky in them were found near the house, and bottles which had contained whisky were found “around there;” some vats which had been used to put malt in, to make beer with, were found “down the branch a little;” and at the corner of the garden was a barrel containing two bushels of wet corn, which was sour and was used for malt, and which had been there a week or ten days. “There was no complete liquor there.” There was a hole which áppeared to' have been dug for a furnace, but it was not completed. The still “had not been used in that place; they had just moved it there.” The defendant said it had been moved from across the river, which was the boundary between that county and another county. At the time these things were found by the witness the defendant’s mother said in the defendant’s presence that “the boys were making whisky because they didn’t want to make a crop, for they were going to war.” The defendant “did not deny it.” Ilis mother has two other boys, and one of them went to the war; one of them, it was testified, “was hiding.”

Opinion:
Stephens, J.
1, The verdict in this case, being without evidence to support it, cannot be allowed to stand.
2. In view of the above ruling it is unnecessary to pass upon the specific assignments of error.
Judgment reversed.
Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Colley & Colley, for plaintiff in error.
R. C. Norman, solicilor-general, contra.