Pulliam v. State , 30 Ga. App. 283 ( 1923 )

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of possessing spirituous liquors, and his motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt, and the'court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided May 15, 1923. W. B. Little, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Shelton, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.