Jefferson v. City of Perry

90 S.E. 365, 18 Ga. App. 689, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1193
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 18, 1916
Docket7634
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 365 (Jefferson v. City of Perry) 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
Jefferson v. City of Perry, 90 S.E. 365, 18 Ga. App. 689, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. The accused was convicted in the mayor’s court in the city of Perry of violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting the “keeping of whisky and intoxicating liquors on hand for sale.” The untraversed answer of the mayor to the writ, of certiorari shows definitely and positively one sale of liquor by the defendant within the corporate limits of the municipality. “Where one is charged with the violation of a valid municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of illegal sale, proof of one sale is sufficient to authorize a conviction.” Seabrooks v. Macon, 17 Ga. App. 348 (86 S. E. 781), and numerous cases there cited.

2. It will be presumed that a municipal ordinance is valid, and the burden [690]*690of establishing its invalidity rests upon the person asserting it. Penal Code, § 1020; Moore v. Thomasville, 17 Ga. App. 285 (86 S. E. 641); McDonald v. Ludowici, 17 Ga. App. 523 (87 S. E. 807). No ordinance appearing in the record in this” ease, it is impossible for this court to determine whether or not an alleged ordinance of the city of Perry impinges upon a law of this State. “One who seeks to review a judgment of a municipal court which is predicated upon an alleged municipal ordinance must, in the record, present the ordinance, so as to enable the reviewing court intelligently to pass upon the question.” Howell v. State, 13 Ga. App. 74, 76 (78 S. E. 859).

Decided October 18, 1916. Certiorari; from Houston superior court — Judge Mathews. April 14, 1916. Marx Kunz, for plaintiff in error. Duncan <& Nunn, contra.

3. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Hart v. Columbus
188 S.E.2d 422 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Merwel Developers, Inc. v. City of Marietta, Board of Adjustments.
109 S.E.2d 926 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Williams v. Jenkins
83 S.E.2d 614 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.E. 365, 18 Ga. App. 689, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferson-v-city-of-perry-gactapp-1916.