Harris v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. State

165 S.E. 331, 45 Ga. App. 477, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 571

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1932

Docket22146

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 S.E. 331 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 165 S.E. 331, 45 Ga. App. 477, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

In the criminal court of Atlanta the accused was convicted of a misdemeanor, under an accusation charging him with engaging in the business of making loans of credit in amounts of $300 and less, and of charging thereon more than 8 per cent, interest per annum, without having first secured .a license from the State banking department; the accusation being based on the “sinall-loan act” (6a, L, 1920, p. 215, sections 1? 18). The de~ [478]*478fendant obtained a writ of certiorari from the superior court of Fulton county, and upon the hearing thereof the certiorari was overruled. Upon a careful consideration of the petition for certiorari and the exhibits thereto, and the various assignments of error in the petition, this court is of the opinion that the verdict was amply authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence, and that none of the special assignments of error in the petition shows cause for a reversal of the order of the judge of the superior court overruling the certiorari. See, in this connection, Crowe v. State, 44 Ga. App. 719 (162 S. E. 849).

J udgment affirmed.

J enhins, P. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

In the criminal court of Atlanta the accused was convicted of a misdemeanor, under an accusation charging him with engaging in the business of making loans of credit in amounts of $300 and less, and of charging thereon more than 8 per cent, interest per annum, without having first secured .a license from the State banking department; the accusation being based on the “sinall-loan act” (6a, L, 1920, p. 215, sections 1? 18). The de~ [478]*478fendant obtained a writ of certiorari from the superior court of Fulton county, and upon the hearing thereof the certiorari was overruled. Upon a careful consideration of the petition for certiorari and the exhibits thereto, and the various assignments of error in the petition, this court is of the opinion that the verdict was amply authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence, and that none of the special assignments of error in the petition shows cause for a reversal of the order of the judge of the superior court overruling the certiorari. See, in this connection, Crowe v. State, 44 Ga. App. 719 (162 S. E. 849).

J udgment affirmed.

J enhins, P. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 331, 45 Ga. App. 477, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack