Jones v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. City of Atlanta

122 S.E. 642, 32 Ga. App. 40, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 243

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1924

Docket15298

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 642 (Jones v. City of Atlanta) 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

Jones v. City of Atlanta, 122 S.E. 642, 32 Ga. App. 40, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 243 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta for conducting a rooming house without a permit from the city authorities, in violation of an ordinance of the City of Atlanta. The evidence showed that at one time a permit to conduct the house in question as a rooming house had been granted to the defendant’s wife, but that this permit had been revoked, and that the premises continued to be operated as a rooming house. There was, however, no evidence introduced which showed that the defendant conducted it as a rooming house. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence disclosed that the rooming house was operated by his wife and in her name alone. It follows that the conviction of the defendant was not authorized by the evidence, and that the court erred in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

LuJce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta for conducting a rooming house without a permit from the city authorities, in violation of an ordinance of the City of Atlanta. The evidence showed that at one time a permit to conduct the house in question as a rooming house had been granted to the defendant’s wife, but that this permit had been revoked, and that the premises continued to be operated as a rooming house. There was, however, no evidence introduced which showed that the defendant conducted it as a rooming house. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence disclosed that the rooming house was operated by his wife and in her name alone. It follows that the conviction of the defendant was not authorized by the evidence, and that the court erred in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

LuJce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 642, 32 Ga. App. 40, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1924.