Head v. City of Alma

Supreme Court of Georgia

Head v. City of Alma

143 S.E. 147, 166 Ga. 137, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 233

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 14, 1928

DocketNo. 6232

StatusPublished

This text of 143 S.E. 147 (Head v. City of Alma) 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

Head v. City of Alma, 143 S.E. 147, 166 Ga. 137, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 233 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The exception is to a judgment on habeas corpus, refusing to discharge the applicant from the custody of the mar[138]*138shal of Alma. The petition makes the following case: B. J. Head was sentenced after being convicted of violating a municipal ordinance which prohibited the “running at large of cattle” on the streets of the city. Petitioner contends that the ordinance is void, “for the reason that the same was improperly, illegally, and wrongfully passed, and not passed as required by the charter granted the city.” The remaining allegations are immaterial. No demurrer was filed. The defendants responded, denying that the ordinance was void, and showing lawful cause of detention. The evidence for petitioner showed his conviction under the ordinance, and his refusal to serve the sentence either by paying the fine assessed or otherwise. Evidence for the respondents authorized the finding that the ordinance was adopted in full compliance with the requirements of the charter, and was not void. The court did not err in refusing to discharge the petitioner and in remanding him to the custody of the marshal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

The exception is to a judgment on habeas corpus, refusing to discharge the applicant from the custody of the mar[138]*138shal of Alma. The petition makes the following case: B. J. Head was sentenced after being convicted of violating a municipal ordinance which prohibited the “running at large of cattle” on the streets of the city. Petitioner contends that the ordinance is void, “for the reason that the same was improperly, illegally, and wrongfully passed, and not passed as required by the charter granted the city.” The remaining allegations are immaterial. No demurrer was filed. The defendants responded, denying that the ordinance was void, and showing lawful cause of detention. The evidence for petitioner showed his conviction under the ordinance, and his refusal to serve the sentence either by paying the fine assessed or otherwise. Evidence for the respondents authorized the finding that the ordinance was adopted in full compliance with the requirements of the charter, and was not void. The court did not err in refusing to discharge the petitioner and in remanding him to the custody of the marshal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 147, 166 Ga. 137, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/head-v-city-of-alma-ga-1928.