Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ga. App. 122

Cason v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 31, 1917

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1917-10-31

<p>Accusation of making intoxicating liquor, etc.; from city court of Polk county — Judge John K. Davis. May 14, 1917. ■</p> <p>The defendant was charged with the offense of manufacturing liquor, and with having in his possession more than two quarts of liquor. He was found guilty, and he filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds only. Briefly stated, the evidence showed a still in active operation; the defendant’s presence at the still, with two other persons; that the defendant, from the woods near by, brought to the still an armful of pine-knots and threw them down at the still; that he picked up a jug and carried it to where the other two persons at the still were measuring out whisky; that he squatted down by the side of the “other ’fellow” who was measuring out the whisky, “all close together”; that later, when the officers arrived on the scene, the defendant, with the same two “fejlows,” was at the still; that all three ran when the officers appeared; that defendant stumbled and fell, jumped up, and continued to run until the officer told him .he need not run, as the officer knew him; and that defendant then stopped, but did not say anything. In a subsequent conversation with this officer, defendant stated that he was not there. Other circumstances in evidence need not be recited. The defendant was convicted of manufacturing liquor, "and a new trial was denied. . -</p>

Relies on 9 Ga. App. 201 - Strickland v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1917-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1952

3 state decisions

1019171920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Harwell, J.

¶1The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial, which was based upon the general grounds only. Strickland v. State, 9 Ga. App. 201 (70 S. E. 990).

¶2 Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Irwin & Tison, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Wright, solicitor, contra.
/21/gaapp/122 · .json · Public domain