Court Opinion

ID: 9830461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:13:41.592704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:15.647541
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant urges that rehearing should be granted, and reversal had, because the court failed to charge on circumstantial evidence. The admissions and confessions of the appellant are in evidence showing that he had the care, control and management of the place of business at the time the house was searched and a quantity of liquor found in the appellant’s private desk and in a window seat. In addition to these confessions and admissions, we also find the positive testimony of witnesses that they bought whisky from appellant in person. This seems sufficient to take the case out of the rule of circumstantial evidence. It has often been held not necessary to prove personal or financial interest in the liquor found in the possession of a given individual, in order to make him guilty of a violation of the law forbidding the possession of intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and no error was committed in the refusal of the special charge involving this principle.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.