Britt v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Britt v. State

16 S.E.2d 523, 65 Ga. App. 812, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 422

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1941

Docket29113.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 523 (Britt v. State) 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

Britt v. State, 16 S.E.2d 523, 65 Ga. App. 812, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 422 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The sole question discussed in the defendant’s brief (he having been convicted of having, controlling, and possessing non-taxpaid whisky) was that his conviction should be set aside because the undisputed testimony showed that at the time and place the search, seizure, and arrest were made, the officers were not acting under any warrant issued from any court of competent jurisdiction. “ Therefore said acts were in violation of both the United States and State of Georgia constitutions.” This question was not raised in the petition for certiorari or passed on by the trial judge, and this court does not have authority to decide any question not raised by a distinct assignment of error in said petition. Code, § 19-402; Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 814); Callaway v. Atlanta, 6 Ga. App. 354 (2) (64 S. E. 1105); Sturman v. State, 59 Ga. App. 498 (1 S. E. 2d, 467). Furthermore, the evidence authorized the judgment, and the judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The sole question discussed in the defendant’s brief (he having been convicted of having, controlling, and possessing non-taxpaid whisky) was that his conviction should be set aside because the undisputed testimony showed that at the time and place the search, seizure, and arrest were made, the officers were not acting under any warrant issued from any court of competent jurisdiction. “ Therefore said acts were in violation of both the United States and State of Georgia constitutions.” This question was not raised in the petition for certiorari or passed on by the trial judge, and this court does not have authority to decide any question not raised by a distinct assignment of error in said petition. Code, § 19-402; Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 814); Callaway v. Atlanta, 6 Ga. App. 354 (2) (64 S. E. 1105); Sturman v. State, 59 Ga. App. 498 (1 S. E. 2d, 467). Furthermore, the evidence authorized the judgment, and the judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E.2d 523, 65 Ga. App. 812, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack