Hansford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hansford v. State

82 S.E. 375, 14 Ga. App. 810, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 459

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 21, 1914

Docket5660

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 375 (Hansford 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

Hansford v. State, 82 S.E. 375, 14 Ga. App. 810, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. An accusation charging a violation of the act prohibiting the carrying of pistols without a license (Acts of 1910, p. 134), is fatally defective when it does not allege that the accused carried the pistol or revolver without first having taken out a license from the ordinary of the county of his residence.

2. In upholding the act of 1910 above referred to, its provisions are to be given a reasonable construction (Strickland v. State, 137 6-a. 12, 72 S. E. 260); and since, in imposing a reasonable regulation upon the carrying of pistols, the manual possession of a pistol at one’s home or place of business is not penalized by the statute, it is essential that an accusation charging a violation of this act shall affirmatively allege that the pistol was carried or was in the manual possession of the defendant “outside of his own home or place of business.”

3. For the reasons stated above, the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the accusation; and since the subsequent proceedings in the trial were nugatory, it would be profitless to consider-questions raised by exceptions to the admission of testimony, or to the charge of the court, not likely to recur upon a future investigation of the case.

Judgment reversed.

Róan, J., absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. An accusation charging a violation of the act prohibiting the carrying of pistols without a license (Acts of 1910, p. 134), is fatally defective when it does not allege that the accused carried the pistol or revolver without first having taken out a license from the ordinary of the county of his residence.

2. In upholding the act of 1910 above referred to, its provisions are to be given a reasonable construction (Strickland v. State, 137 6-a. 12, 72 S. E. 260); and since, in imposing a reasonable regulation upon the carrying of pistols, the manual possession of a pistol at one’s home or place of business is not penalized by the statute, it is essential that an accusation charging a violation of this act shall affirmatively allege that the pistol was carried or was in the manual possession of the defendant “outside of his own home or place of business.”

3. For the reasons stated above, the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the accusation; and since the subsequent proceedings in the trial were nugatory, it would be profitless to consider-questions raised by exceptions to the admission of testimony, or to the charge of the court, not likely to recur upon a future investigation of the case.

Judgment reversed.

Róan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 375, 14 Ga. App. 810, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansford-v-state-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack