Felker v. Stark

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Felker v. Stark

78 S.E. 202, 12 Ga. App. 695, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 715

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 6, 1913

Docket4676

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 202 (Felker v. Stark) 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

Felker v. Stark, 78 S.E. 202, 12 Ga. App. 695, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 715 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

Where a person pleads guilty in a municipal court of the offense of disorderly conduct and a fine is imposed, and he is released by the police officer upon the execution and delivery of a promissory note signed by a third person in payment of the fine, it is no defense to a suit on the note that the person thus released was not in fact-guilty of disorderly conduct, but was guilty only of the offense of gaming, for which the municipal court had no jurisdiction to try him; that the municipal officer knew that the accused was hot guilty of disorderly conduct, and charged him with that offense and accepted his plea simply for the purpose of enabling him to evade a prosecution for gaming. The fact that he was subsequently charged in the State court with that offense is immaterial. . Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Monroe—Judge Johns presiding. January 15, 1913.

J. H. Felher, for plaintiff in error. R. L. Cox, contra.

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

Pottle, J.

Where a person pleads guilty in a municipal court of the offense of disorderly conduct and a fine is imposed, and he is released by the police officer upon the execution and delivery of a promissory note signed by a third person in payment of the fine, it is no defense to a suit on the note that the person thus released was not in fact-guilty of disorderly conduct, but was guilty only of the offense of gaming, for which the municipal court had no jurisdiction to try him; that the municipal officer knew that the accused was hot guilty of disorderly conduct, and charged him with that offense and accepted his plea simply for the purpose of enabling him to evade a prosecution for gaming. The fact that he was subsequently charged in the State court with that offense is immaterial. . Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Monroe—Judge Johns presiding. January 15, 1913.

J. H. Felher, for plaintiff in error. R. L. Cox, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 202, 12 Ga. App. 695, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felker-v-stark-gactapp-1913.