Durham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Durham v. State

175 S.E. 542, 49 Ga. App. 374, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 408

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 20, 1934

Docket23861

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 542 (Durham 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused, a married woman, was convicted of keeping a disorderly house. The undisputed evidence showed [375]*375that 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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused, a married woman, was convicted of keeping a disorderly house. The undisputed evidence showed [375]*375that 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 542, 49 Ga. App. 374, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-state-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack