Case Name: Walker et al. v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1921-01-25
Citations: 26 Ga. App. 184
Docket Number: 11905
Parties: Walker et al. v. The State.
Judges: Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J. concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
11905.
Walker et al. v. The State.
Decided January 25, 1921.
Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court oí Zebulon — Judge Dupree. October 2, 1920.
The accusation charged that on June 19, 1920, the defendants, George Walker and Herman Walker, had in their possession and on their premises a still and apparatus for the distilling and manufacturing of “ liquors and beverages. ” The case came to this court on exceptions of the overruling of a demurrer to the accusation, and of a motion for a new trial. From the evidence it appears that in June, 1920, a deputy sheriff, with Allen Arnold and W. S. Reviere, went to where the defendants lived, but found no one there. The deputy sheriff testified: “We found out by side of an old smoke-house an old automobile tank, covered up with some old sacks. It looked as if it had been on the fire. It was smoked up, appeared to have been used to boil something in. It was originally an automobile gas-tank. We also found some pieces of pipe there. The pipes were in the house and the old tank was on the outside. By using the things we found there — the old automobile gas-tank and the pipes — whisky could be manufactured. ” It was testified that the defendants came there shortly after the witnesses arrived, and that Georgie Walker first said that he did not know anything about the things found there, but afterwards, according to the recollection of the witness, he said they belonged to Herman, the other defendant. The witnesses destroyed the tank and the pipes. Allen Arnold’s testimony was substantially the same as that of the deputy sheriff, except that Arnold did not say that whisky could be made by the use of the tank and the pipes. There was no further testimony.

Opinion:
Luke, J.
The evidence in this case did not authorize the verdict, and for • this reason it was error to overrule the defendant's motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J. concur.
G. J. Lester, for plaintiff in error.
J. F. Bedding, solicitor, contra.