Kent v. State

Jordan, Judge.

1. Where the evidence shows that intoxicating liquor was found in the place of business of one charged with possession of such liquor, an inference arises that said liquor was in the defendant’s possession. Such inference is not conclusive, but may be rebutted by showing that such liquor was not the defendant’s property and was not there with his knowledge and consent. Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga. App. 286 (190 SE 48); Lewis v. State, 6 Ga. App. 205 (2) (64 SE 701).

The undisputed evidence in this case disclosed that a quantity of unstamped and non-tax-paid liquor was found in the…