In re Hartsfield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In re Hartsfield

79 S.E. 225, 13 Ga. App. 451, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 194

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 17, 1913·No. 4911·Published

Opinion

Hita, C. J.

Under the facts in this record, the imposing of a fine upon the plaintiff in error by the trial judge, with an alternative of ten days’ imprisonment, for'alleged contempt of court, was an abuse of discretion; yet, the i fine having been paid to avoid the alternative sentence of imprisonment, the writ of error as to this judgment can not be entertained. The case is Controlled by the ease of White v. Tifton, 1 Ga. App. 569 (57 S. E. 1038), and citations. Writ of error dismissed.

Complaint; from city court of Bainbridgé — Judge Spooner! April 5, 1913.

Erie M. Donalson, T. 8. Hawes, for plaintiff. M. E. O’Neal, solicitor, contra.

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

Hita, C. J.

Under the facts in this record, the imposing of a fine upon the plaintiff in error by the trial judge, with an alternative of ten days’ imprisonment, for'alleged contempt of court, was an abuse of discretion; yet, the i fine having been paid to avoid the alternative sentence of imprisonment, the writ of error as to this judgment can not be entertained. The case is Controlled by the ease of White v. Tifton, 1 Ga. App. 569 (57 S. E. 1038), and citations. Writ of error dismissed.

Complaint; from city court of Bainbridgé — Judge Spooner! April 5, 1913.

Erie M. Donalson, T. 8. Hawes, for plaintiff. M. E. O’Neal, solicitor, contra.

In re Hartsfield, 79 S.E. 225, 13 Ga. App. 451, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

79 S.E. 225 (In re Hartsfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related