Opinion
34545.
DECIDED MARCH 13, 1953. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 12, 1953.
Violating liquor law; from Jenkins Superior Court — Judge Renfroe. December 31, 1952.
Thomas M. Odom, for plaintiff in error.
Walter Usher, Solicitor-General, contra.
"Presence of a person at a distillery where intoxicating liquor is being made, and his flight on seeing an officer approaching, may, when not satisfactorily explained, authorize a jury to find him guilty of making such liquor. Whether an attempted explanation of such presence and conduct is reasonable and satisfactory is a question for the jury." Smith v. State, 46 Ga. App. 351 ( 167 S.E. 714); Flint v. State, 29 Ga. App. 222 ( 114 S.E. 585); Yonce v. State, 154 Ga. 419 ( 114 S.E. 325); Chester v. State, 74 Ga. App. 667 ( 41 S.E.2d 162); Houston v. State, 81 Ga. App. 551 ( 59 S.E.2d 290); Johnson v. State, 79 Ga. App. 210 (3) ( 53 S.E.2d 498); Akin v. State, 66 Ga. App. 582 ( 18 S.E.2d 566); Weaver v. State, 50 Ga. App. 178 (1) ( 177 S.E. 349); Nelson v. State, 84 Ga. App. 596 (5) ( 66 S.E.2d 751).
Judgment affirmed. Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.
DECIDED MARCH 13, 1953.
The defendant was identified by police officers as the sole person present at a still, in actual operation at the time of a raid thereon. He fled upon the approach of the officers, but was later apprehended and identified. In his statement, uncorroborated by other evidence, the defendant contended that he was not the man who had been seen at the still. A motion on the general grounds only was overruled, and this judgment is assigned as error.