Manning v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.
1. Plaintiff in error was accused of having “in his possession, custody, and control a quantity of spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, and intoxicating liquors.” On the trial the judge instructed the jury, “If you believe from the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant Ed Manning did, on the date alleged in the accusation or at any time two years prior to the filing thereof, have a bottle in his possession, custody, pr control, and that the bottle did contain spirituous, malt, vinous, *149or intoxicating liquors, it would make no difference whether the bottle and its contents…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Atlanta v. ScipleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Luke v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Warfield & Robinson v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Joiner v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923