Dill v. Mayor of Washington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dill v. Mayor of Washington

76 S.E. 156, 11 Ga. App. 799, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 188

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1912

Docket4430

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E. 156 (Dill v. Mayor of Washington) 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

Dill v. Mayor of Washington, 76 S.E. 156, 11 Ga. App. 799, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. A municipal ordinance, for a violation of which the accused was convicted by the municipal court, can not be challenged as invalid for the first time in this court. If the ordinance for any reason is invalid, it must be first attacked in the lower or trial court. Sutton v. Washington, 4 Ga. App. 30 (60 S. E. 811).

2. Assuming, as this court must do in the absence of any attack on the ordinance in the trial court, that it is valid, th'e presumption which the ordinance raised against the accused, from the finding of five gallons of intoxicating liquors in his possession in the municipality, was not rebutted by the evidence. And while the statement made by the accused, as explanatory of his possession of the liquor, if true, would have been sufficient to rebut the presumption of guilt raised against him by the ordinance, yet the credit which should be given to this statement was entirely a matter for the municipal court. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. A municipal ordinance, for a violation of which the accused was convicted by the municipal court, can not be challenged as invalid for the first time in this court. If the ordinance for any reason is invalid, it must be first attacked in the lower or trial court. Sutton v. Washington, 4 Ga. App. 30 (60 S. E. 811).

2. Assuming, as this court must do in the absence of any attack on the ordinance in the trial court, that it is valid, th'e presumption which the ordinance raised against the accused, from the finding of five gallons of intoxicating liquors in his possession in the municipality, was not rebutted by the evidence. And while the statement made by the accused, as explanatory of his possession of the liquor, if true, would have been sufficient to rebut the presumption of guilt raised against him by the ordinance, yet the credit which should be given to this statement was entirely a matter for the municipal court. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 156, 11 Ga. App. 799, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dill-v-mayor-of-washington-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack