Opinion
33243.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1950. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 31, 1950.
Violating liquor law; from Clarke Superior Court — Judge West. July 8, 1950.
Joseph E. Webb, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Solicitor-General, contra.
The evidence authorized the verdict finding the defendant guilty of possessing non-tax-paid liquor.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1950. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 31, 1950.
Bob Wages was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Clarke County for the offense of possessing illegal whisky. Witnesses for the State testified: that they searched the defendant's premises in his absence; that they found a gallon of non-tax-paid liquor beside a well-traveled path, about 80 steps from the defendant's home; that, in an outhouse about 12 or 14 feet from his house in his back yard, they found another half-gallon jar in a bucket hanging on the wall and containing a half pint of non-tax-paid liquor, and two sacks filled with empty jars, some of them containing the odor of liquor, together with a funnel; that, upon being shown the liquor suspended in a bucket, the defendant said he had forgotten about that; and that he had put it there to drink. In his statement to the jury the defendant denied any knowledge of the liquor found in the path but did not deny his statement as to the liquor found in the outhouse. He also stated, "All the whisky I drink I carry it into my house, friends, and I drink a little bit every day if I can get it, but I do not sell it."
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant made a motion for a new trial on the general grounds only. The judgment of the trial court overruling this motion is assigned as error.
Without deciding whether or not the testimony relating to the discovery of a cache of liquor on a well-traveled path approximately 80 yards from the defendant's home would be sufficient to convict (See Summerville v. State, 68 Ga. App. 13, 21 S.E.2d 909; Cummings v. State, 25 Ga. App. 427, 103 S.E. 687), nevertheless, the undisputed testimony for the State that other liquor was found in a building immediately adjacent to the defendant's house, the defendant admitting that he had placed the liquor there and forgotten about it, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed. MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.