Cato v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cato v. State

146 S.E. 915, 39 Ga. App. 389, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 328

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1929

Docket19304

StatusPublished

This text of 146 S.E. 915 (Cato 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

Cato v. State, 146 S.E. 915, 39 Ga. App. 389, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 328 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Atlanta of possessing whisky, and obtained a writ of certiorari from the superior court. The specific assignments of error are set out in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of paragraph 9 of the petition for certiorari. Subparagraphs (a), (b), and (e) allege, in substance, that the conviction of the accused by the judge (sitting without the intervention of a jury) was contrary to law and the evidence, and without the support of any legal evidence. Those subparagraphs are without merit, as the petition for certiorari contains some evidence authorizing the judgment of the court.

• The facts set forth in the remaining subparagraphs, (c), (d) and (f), are not verified by the answer of the trial judge, and, therefore, raise no question for the consideration of either the superior court or this court. Cochran v. Anderson, 30 Ga. App. 427 (118 S. E. 450); Cunningham v. Atlanta, 37 Ga. App. 634 (141 S. E. 214); Shirling v. Kennon, 119 Ga. 501 (2) (46 S. E. 630); Buchner v. State, 115 Ga. 238 (41 S. E. 583). The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luhe, J., absent.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Atlanta of possessing whisky, and obtained a writ of certiorari from the superior court. The specific assignments of error are set out in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of paragraph 9 of the petition for certiorari. Subparagraphs (a), (b), and (e) allege, in substance, that the conviction of the accused by the judge (sitting without the intervention of a jury) was contrary to law and the evidence, and without the support of any legal evidence. Those subparagraphs are without merit, as the petition for certiorari contains some evidence authorizing the judgment of the court.

• The facts set forth in the remaining subparagraphs, (c), (d) and (f), are not verified by the answer of the trial judge, and, therefore, raise no question for the consideration of either the superior court or this court. Cochran v. Anderson, 30 Ga. App. 427 (118 S. E. 450); Cunningham v. Atlanta, 37 Ga. App. 634 (141 S. E. 214); Shirling v. Kennon, 119 Ga. 501 (2) (46 S. E. 630); Buchner v. State, 115 Ga. 238 (41 S. E. 583). The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luhe, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 915, 39 Ga. App. 389, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cato-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack