Court Opinion

ID: 5618495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:26:54.880936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:19.470514
License: Public Domain

Luke, J.
On circumstantial evidence the defendant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor. Under the facts of the case it could be reasonably concluded that the small quantity of whisky found, in the *639absence of tlie accused, in an outliouse on his premises, belonged to some one other than himself; and, since the evidence does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See Humphrey v. State, 25 Ga. App. 244 (102 S. E. 911); Turner v. State, 25 Ga. App. 234 (102 S. E. 847).
Decided April 12, 1927.
D. R. Pearce, for plaintiff in error.
M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.