Case Name: PHILLIPS v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1911-10-23
Citations: 9 Ga. App. 857
Docket Number: 3495
Parties: PHILLIPS v. THE STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 857–862

Head Matter:
3495.
PHILLIPS v. THE STATE.
The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty. While the charge of the judge, to the effect that if the defendant rented a portion of the store to another person, and knew that whisky was being kept there, he would' be guilty, is not abstractly a correct statement of the law, the undisputed testimony so ineontrovertibly supports the inference of the defendant’s guilt that the error is harmless.
Decided October 23, 1911.
Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. April 10, 1911. ' X
Phillips was convicted in the criminal court of Atlanta of a violation of the prohibition law in keeping liquor on hand at his place of business. The evidence for the State shows that the police officers entered his store with a search warrant, and found in the rear of the store a barrel and a half barrel of quart bottles of whisky, and a part of a barrel of pint bottles of whisky. There were also about two barrels of empty bottles of the same kind just outside the store, and, on the window sill, some emptv whisky glasses and some spoons. The defense relied on was that the part of the store in which the whisky was found had been sublet by Phillips to J. T-T. Payne, who conducted a fish and oyster business there. The part thus sublet was a space about 12 by 14 feet in area, from the rear of the store up to the fifth post. ' At this point there was a sign reading, “Office J. H. Payne, Pish & Oyster Dealer.” This sign was written on a piece of pasteboard taken from the-top of a whisky barrel. The uneontradicted testimony is to the effect that there were no fish or oysters in the store, and that Payne’s stock of merchandise consisted wholly of the barrels containing whisky. There was no partition. There was evidence of a sale of whisky by Payne, at his house, but no evidence of a sale at the store by either Payne or Phillips. There was an entry on Phillips’s cash-book of “$10 rent” from Payne. The judge charged the jury that if they believed, from the evidence, that the whisky was kept with knowledge of Phillips, in the part of the store rented to Payne, Phillips would be guilty.
Hewlett & Dennis, 2fah>ern Hill, for plaintiff in error.
TI. M. Dorsey, solicitor-general, Lowry Arnold, solicitor, contra.

Opinion:
Russell, J.
We think that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to convict, and the judge's instruction referred to in the statement of facts was not prejudicial to the defendant, even though not correct as an abstract proposition of law. In view of the issues made by the evidence and the admissions of the defendant, we think that the renting of a portion of the store under the circumstances stated, and with -knowledge that whisky was being kept there, would make Phillips particeps criminis. The landlord must hide his knowledge behind something more substantial than a sign made from a piece of pasteboard taken from the top of a whisky barrel, advertising the sale of "fish and oysters" consisting of quart and-pint bottles of whisky. A landlord can not, under (lie circumstances shown in this case, say that he did not aid and abet the crime which he knew was being .committed by his tenant under his very nose. Judgment affirmed.