Hall v. State

Gardner, J. As to the general grounds, we think the evidence abundantly supported the verdict. The first ground of the amended motion complains that the evidence above set out in substance was wholly circumstantial, and that the court, without a *657 ■written request, should have charged the law of circumstantial evidence. We do not think the evidence was wholly circumstantial. This being so, failure to charge the law of circumstantial evidence in the absence of a written request was not error. Special grounds 2 and 3 complain that the court should have charged the following part of the law governing said offense: “Intended for sale in this State except for delivery to a State warehouse provided for in this section.” This contention is without merit. Ground 4 complains of the court’s charge to the effect that if the jury believed that the defendant, under the law, illegally possessed the whisky as charged they would be authorized to convict him. However, the court later, almost immediately, corrected this by calling the jury’s attention to the error, and further instructing them to the effect that he should have instructed them, and meant to instruct them, as to the possession and transporting of the whisky as alleged in the accusation. This ground is without merit. The judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed. Broyles, Q. J., concurs.