Dwight v. City of Dalton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dwight v. City of Dalton

140 S.E. 403, 37 Ga. App. 385, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 704

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1927

Docket18452

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 403 (Dwight v. City of Dalton) 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

Dwight v. City of Dalton, 140 S.E. 403, 37 Ga. App. 385, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied. The failure of counsel for the plaintiff in error to comply with the rules of this court as to the service of briefs upon counsel for the defendant in error is not ground for a dismissal of the writ of error.

2. The accused was convicted in the recorder’s court of Dalton of violating a certain ordinance of the city. We can not say that his conviction was unauthorized by any evidence. The punishment prescribed by the ordinance was a fine of not more than fifty dollars or a sentence of not more than twenty days upon the streets. The recorder imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs, and, as part of Ms sentence, forbade the accused to drive an automobile wMle the recorder held his office or for the balance of the year. It is obvious that the latter . part of the sentence (the part in italics) was unauthorized and illegal. The judge of the superior court erred in refusing to sanction the petition for certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied. The failure of counsel for the plaintiff in error to comply with the rules of this court as to the service of briefs upon counsel for the defendant in error is not ground for a dismissal of the writ of error.

2. The accused was convicted in the recorder’s court of Dalton of violating a certain ordinance of the city. We can not say that his conviction was unauthorized by any evidence. The punishment prescribed by the ordinance was a fine of not more than fifty dollars or a sentence of not more than twenty days upon the streets. The recorder imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs, and, as part of Ms sentence, forbade the accused to drive an automobile wMle the recorder held his office or for the balance of the year. It is obvious that the latter . part of the sentence (the part in italics) was unauthorized and illegal. The judge of the superior court erred in refusing to sanction the petition for certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 403, 37 Ga. App. 385, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwight-v-city-of-dalton-gactapp-1927.