Case Name: Harris v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1919-11-04
Citations: 24 Ga. App. 355
Docket Number: 10869
Parties: Harris v. The State.
Judges: Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
10869.
Harris v. The State.
Decided November 4, 1919.
Accusation of possessing intoxicating liquors, from city court of Dublin. August 18, 1919.
From the evidence it appeared that seven quarts and a pint of whisky were found in the room of Cora Lee Harris, the defendant, by two officers who together were searching the house in her absence. The whisky was concealed in the wall, under a window sill, whore a piece had been sawed out of the ceiling and the window curtains dropped down over it. On taking out a piece of ceiling which had holes bored in it the officers found the whisky. The house was “a common negro house, with two rooms in front and two shed-rooms on the back, with a stack chimney in the middle, and Cora Leo’s apartment was in one end of the house. . . It seemed like somebody was living in the other end of the house.” A woman was in that end, and a curtain hung between the two parts of the house; one of the witnesses thought the partition had been taken out. The officers sent for the defendant, and a day or two later she came to one of them and said she wanted to “fix up the bond,” that she had found whose whisky was in her house; it belonged to “a fellow named Jonas Harris;” and on her statement he was arrested, and a pint of whisky was found on him. These officers were the only witnesses at the trial. In her statement at the trial the defendant said she was married and ivas living with her husband when the whisky was found; 'that another woman was living in the same house; that she did not see the whisky and knew nothing of it; that after one of the officers had asked her about it the man who brought it there came and called for his whisky, and she told the officer about it.

Opinion:
Luke, J.
The evidence did not authorize the conviction of the defendant upon the charge of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquors. It was error to overrule her motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.
Smythe Burch, W. A. Dampier, for plaintiff in error.