Case Name: Cason v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1917-10-31
Citations: 21 Ga. App. 122
Docket Number: 8960
Parties: Cason v. The State.
Judges: Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
8960.
Cason v. The State.
Decided October 31, 1917.
Accusation of making intoxicating liquor, etc.; from city court of Polk county — Judge John K. Davis. May 14, 1917. ■
The defendant was charged with the offense of manufacturing liquor, and with having in his possession more than two quarts of liquor. He was found guilty, and he filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds only. Briefly stated, the evidence showed a still in active operation; the defendant’s presence at the still, with two other persons; that the defendant, from the woods near by, brought to the still an armful of pine-knots and threw them down at the still; that he picked up a jug and carried it to where the other two persons at the still were measuring out whisky; that he squatted down by the side of the “other ’fellow” who was measuring out the whisky, “all close together”; that later, when the officers arrived on the scene, the defendant, with the same two “fejlows,” was at the still; that all three ran when the officers appeared; that defendant stumbled and fell, jumped up, and continued to run until the officer told him .he need not run, as the officer knew him; and that defendant then stopped, but did not say anything. In a subsequent conversation with this officer, de fendant stated that he was not there. Other circumstances in evidence need not be recited. The defendant was convicted of manufacturing liquor, "and a new trial was denied. . -

Opinion:
Harwell, J.
The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial, which was based upon the general grounds only. Strickland v. State, 9 Ga. App. 201 (70 S. E. 990).
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Irwin & Tison, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Wright, solicitor, contra.