Bateman v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bateman v. City of Atlanta

179 S.E. 403, 51 Ga. App. 10, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 518

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 26, 1935

Docket24254

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 403 (Bateman 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

Bateman v. City of Atlanta, 179 S.E. 403, 51 Ga. App. 10, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. “In the trial before a municipal court, the recorder, or other presiding judge, may take judicial notice of the ordinances of the city defining offenses against the same.”

2. “Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court than the municipal court can take judicial cognizance of a municipal ordinance.” Hill v. Atlanta, 125 Ga. 697 (54 S. E. 354, 5 Ann. Cas. 614).

3. The petition for certiorari assigns error upon the judgment of a municipal court, on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence. The existence of the ordinance alleged to have been violated is admitted in the petition; but the provisions of the ordinance axe not set out, either literally or in substance. Therefore it is impossible to determine whether, under the evidence contained in the petition, any error was committed by the recorder in finding the defendant guilty. If any error was committed, the plaintiff in error has failed to show it; and this is sufficient reason for a judge of the superior court to refuse to sanction the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Guei'ry, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. “In the trial before a municipal court, the recorder, or other presiding judge, may take judicial notice of the ordinances of the city defining offenses against the same.”

2. “Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court than the municipal court can take judicial cognizance of a municipal ordinance.” Hill v. Atlanta, 125 Ga. 697 (54 S. E. 354, 5 Ann. Cas. 614).

3. The petition for certiorari assigns error upon the judgment of a municipal court, on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence. The existence of the ordinance alleged to have been violated is admitted in the petition; but the provisions of the ordinance axe not set out, either literally or in substance. Therefore it is impossible to determine whether, under the evidence contained in the petition, any error was committed by the recorder in finding the defendant guilty. If any error was committed, the plaintiff in error has failed to show it; and this is sufficient reason for a judge of the superior court to refuse to sanction the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Guei'ry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 403, 51 Ga. App. 10, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bateman-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack