Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. State

101 S.E. 915, 24 Ga. App. 711, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 476

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 28, 1920

Docket11014

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 915 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 101 S.E. 915, 24 Ga. App. 711, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 476 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

In order to authorize the conviction of one charged in an indictment with having disturbed a congregation of persons lawfully assembled for divine service, by cursing, by using profane and obscene language, and by being intoxicated, it is necessary to show that there was a lawful assembly of persons engaged in divine service as alleged in the indictment, and that, in the manner charged, some person of the congregation so assembled was actually disturbed. The evidence in this case did not authorize the conviction of the defendant. It was error for the court to overrule her certiorari and not grant her a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J,, concur. Davidson, Callatvay & DeJarnette, for plaintiff in error. Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Luke, J.

In order to authorize the conviction of one charged in an indictment with having disturbed a congregation of persons lawfully assembled for divine service, by cursing, by using profane and obscene language, and by being intoxicated, it is necessary to show that there was a lawful assembly of persons engaged in divine service as alleged in the indictment, and that, in the manner charged, some person of the congregation so assembled was actually disturbed. The evidence in this case did not authorize the conviction of the defendant. It was error for the court to overrule her certiorari and not grant her a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J,, concur. Davidson, Callatvay & DeJarnette, for plaintiff in error. Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 915, 24 Ga. App. 711, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-gactapp-1920.