Boozer v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Boozer v. City of Atlanta

90 S.E. 369, 18 Ga. App. 697, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1201

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 18, 1916

Docket7684

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 369 (Boozer 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

Boozer v. City of Atlanta, 90 S.E. 369, 18 Ga. App. 697, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1201 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

The evidence in this case justified the recorder in finding the plaintiff in error guilty of being an idle and disorderly person, and the presiding judge did not err in overruling the petition for certiorari. The ordinance penalizes two ’ offenses: one where a person “shall remain or loiter in front of any church or other place of public worship during service therein, or in front of any theater, concert-hall, ballroom, etc., or in front of any coffee-house, barroom, or beer saloon,” after an officer or member of the police force has directed him to move; and the other where a person, whether so directed to move or not, “shall loiter or idle his -or her time on the sidewalks or public streets of this city.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hodges, J.

The evidence in this case justified the recorder in finding the plaintiff in error guilty of being an idle and disorderly person, and the presiding judge did not err in overruling the petition for certiorari. The ordinance penalizes two ’ offenses: one where a person “shall remain or loiter in front of any church or other place of public worship during service therein, or in front of any theater, concert-hall, ballroom, etc., or in front of any coffee-house, barroom, or beer saloon,” after an officer or member of the police force has directed him to move; and the other where a person, whether so directed to move or not, “shall loiter or idle his -or her time on the sidewalks or public streets of this city.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 369, 18 Ga. App. 697, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boozer-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1916.