Glover v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Glover v. State

122 S.E.2d 744, 217 Ga. 401, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 468

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1961

Docket21406

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 S.E.2d 744 (Glover v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glover v. State, 122 S.E.2d 744, 217 Ga. 401, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 468 (Ga. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Justice.

1. An accusation against the defendant in the instant case was filed in the City Court of Macon, charging him with a violation of the provisions of Code §§ 18-208 and 18-9904, which make it a penal offense for a passenger to remain in any car, compartment, or seat of a train, street car, or bus other than the one assigned to him as a passenger by the conductor or operator thereof. Before arraignment the accused demurred generally to the accusation on the ground that Code §§ 18-208 and 18-9904 offend the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the Constitution of the United States (Code § 1-815), and for that reason are null and void. The demurrer was overruled, and there is no exception to that judgment. Such ruling there *402 fore fixed and became the law of this case and amounts to an adjudication that those sections of the Code do not for the reason alleged offend the due-process and equal-protection claused of the Federal Constitution. This rule applies in criminal cases as well as in civil cases’. Griffin v. Eaves, 114 Ga. 65 (39 SE 913); Sims v. Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co., 123 Ga. 643 (51 SE 573); Matthews v. State, 125 Ga. 248, 249 (54 SE 192); Nelson v. State, 179 Ga. 743 (177 SE 253).

Argued October 9, 1961- — Decided November 9, 1961. D. L. Hollowell, Horace T. Ward, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Clay, Jr., Harry F. Thompson, contra.

2. A motion in arrest of judgment must be predicated on defects appearing on the face of the record, and, in a criminal case “the face of the record” means the indictment and verdict. See Spence v. State, 7 Ga. App. 825, 826 (68 SE 443); Pippin v. State, 172 Ga. 224 (157 SE 185). There were no defects appearing on the face of the record in this case, and consequently the motion in arrest of judgment did not raise any question calling for a construction of the Constitution, or, for that matter, any other question.

3. The general grounds do not raise any constitutional question for consideration by this court.

4. In view of the foregoing, the writ of error presents no constitutional question to this court for consideration. Hence, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of the case, and it must be

Transferred to- the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Mobley, Justice.

1. An accusation against the defendant in the instant case was filed in the City Court of Macon, charging him with a violation of the provisions of Code §§ 18-208 and 18-9904, which make it a penal offense for a passenger to remain in any car, compartment, or seat of a train, street car, or bus other than the one assigned to him as a passenger by the conductor or operator thereof. Before arraignment the accused demurred generally to the accusation on the ground that Code §§ 18-208 and 18-9904 offend the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the Constitution of the United States (Code § 1-815), and for that reason are null and void. The demurrer was overruled, and there is no exception to that judgment. Such ruling there *402 fore fixed and became the law of this case and amounts to an adjudication that those sections of the Code do not for the reason alleged offend the due-process and equal-protection claused of the Federal Constitution. This rule applies in criminal cases as well as in civil cases’. Griffin v. Eaves, 114 Ga. 65 (39 SE 913); Sims v. Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co., 123 Ga. 643 (51 SE 573); Matthews v. State, 125 Ga. 248, 249 (54 SE 192); Nelson v. State, 179 Ga. 743 (177 SE 253).

Argued October 9, 1961- — Decided November 9, 1961. D. L. Hollowell, Horace T. Ward, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Clay, Jr., Harry F. Thompson, contra.

2. A motion in arrest of judgment must be predicated on defects appearing on the face of the record, and, in a criminal case “the face of the record” means the indictment and verdict. See Spence v. State, 7 Ga. App. 825, 826 (68 SE 443); Pippin v. State, 172 Ga. 224 (157 SE 185). There were no defects appearing on the face of the record in this case, and consequently the motion in arrest of judgment did not raise any question calling for a construction of the Constitution, or, for that matter, any other question.

3. The general grounds do not raise any constitutional question for consideration by this court.

4. In view of the foregoing, the writ of error presents no constitutional question to this court for consideration. Hence, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of the case, and it must be

Transferred to- the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E.2d 744, 217 Ga. 401, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-state-ga-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack