63 S.E.2d 689 (Ga.App. 1951), 33302, Easterwood v. State

Citation: 63 S.E.2d 689, 83 Ga.App. 400

Opinion Judge: GARDNER, Judge.

Party Name: EASTERWOOD v. STATE.

Attorney: The evidence, although circumstantial, is not only inconsistent with the hypothesis of the defendant's guilt, but it does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant's guilt of possessing malt beverages for the purpose of sale, without first having obtained a license ...

Judge Panel: SUTTON, C. J., and FELTON, TOWNSEND and WORRILL, JJ., concur. MacINTYRE, P. J., dissents. MacINTYRE, Presiding Judge (dissenting).

Case Date: March 02, 1951

Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Linked as:

Document options

Printable page
Email this

Extract

63 S.E.2d 689 (Ga.App. 1951), 33302, Easterwood v. State

No longer available (Autolink)

See the full content of this document

This document cites

Georgia - 4 S.E. 13 (Ga. 1887), Brown v. Matthews
Georgia - 68 S.E. 619 (Ga.App. 1910), 2,692, Fain v. City of Atlanta
Georgia - 69 S.E. 578 (Ga.App. 1910), 2,805, Cain v. City of Cordele
Georgia - 78 S.E. 472 (Ga.App. 1913), 4,903, Smith v. City of Atlanta
Georgia - 49 S.E.2d 157 (Ga.App. 1948), 32074, Buchanan v. State

See all quotations