Austin v. State

1. “It is not necessary for the State to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was under the influence of some intoxicant as *192charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Hart v. State, 26 Ga. App. 64 (105 S. E. 383) ; Chapman v. State, 40 Ga. App. 725 (151 S. E. 410).

Decided July 7, 1933. Alec Harris, for plaintiff in error. James F. Kelly, solicitor-general, J. R. Rosser, contra.

2. It would make no difference to one charged with operating an automobile over a public highway of this State while under…