Backus v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Backus v. City of Atlanta

66 S.E. 1036, 7 Ga. App. 397, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 319

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1910

Docket2300; 2301

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 1036 (Backus v. City of Atlanta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Backus v. City of Atlanta, 66 S.E. 1036, 7 Ga. App. 397, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The defendants were tried jointly for a violation of a municipal ordinance. They were not represented by counsel, and the witnesses against them were not cross-examined, and one of the defendants was not served with a summons. Held, no error requiring the grant of another trial, where there was no request by either defendant for a separate trial, and no request to be allowed to cross-examine any of the witnesses, or refusal of such request, and where the defendant who was not served with a summons did not demand to be served with one before the trial. Venable v. Atlanta, ante, 190 (66 S. E. 489) ; Pearson v. Wimbish, 124 Ga. 708 (52 S. E. 751).

2. On the trial of one charged with violation of a city ordinance, the credibility of testimony is for determination exclusively by the municipal official trying the case; and his finding will not be interfered with, where there is any evidence to support it, especially where it is approved by the superior court on certiorari.

3. Punishment imposed for a violation of a city ordinance is not legally excessive, where it is within the limitations of the ordinance.

4. The evidence against the defendants was decidedly weak, but we can not hold that there was none; and its sufficiency was entirely for the recorder. Judgment affirmed.

Russell, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill, C. J.

1. The defendants were tried jointly for a violation of a municipal ordinance. They were not represented by counsel, and the witnesses against them were not cross-examined, and one of the defendants was not served with a summons. Held, no error requiring the grant of another trial, where there was no request by either defendant for a separate trial, and no request to be allowed to cross-examine any of the witnesses, or refusal of such request, and where the defendant who was not served with a summons did not demand to be served with one before the trial. Venable v. Atlanta, ante, 190 (66 S. E. 489) ; Pearson v. Wimbish, 124 Ga. 708 (52 S. E. 751).

2. On the trial of one charged with violation of a city ordinance, the credibility of testimony is for determination exclusively by the municipal official trying the case; and his finding will not be interfered with, where there is any evidence to support it, especially where it is approved by the superior court on certiorari.

3. Punishment imposed for a violation of a city ordinance is not legally excessive, where it is within the limitations of the ordinance.

4. The evidence against the defendants was decidedly weak, but we can not hold that there was none; and its sufficiency was entirely for the recorder. Judgment affirmed.

Russell, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E. 1036, 7 Ga. App. 397, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/backus-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack