Durham v. State

175 S.E. 542, 49 Ga. App. 374, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 408
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 20, 1934·No. 23861·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused, a married woman, was convicted of keeping a disorderly house. The undisputed evidence showed [375] that although she paid the rent for the house, her husband lived there with her. He, therefore, was the head of the house; and when both were present it was his duty, not hers, to prevent disorder in the house; and in order to hold her criminally liable for permitting such disorder, it should have been shown that she took an active part in the running of the house and in the allowance of the disorder. Bell v. State, 92 Ga. 49 (3) (18 S. E. 186); Patterson v. State, 8 Ga. App. 454 (69 S. E. 591). In the instant case the undisputed evidence was that the accused was active in trying to hinder and prevent the disorder.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Durham v. State, 175 S.E. 542, 49 Ga. App. 374, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

175 S.E. 542 (Durham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kinney v. State
57 S.E.2d 359 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)