Maddox v. City of Dublin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maddox v. City of Dublin

89 S.E. 605, 18 Ga. App. 499, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1053

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 29, 1916

Docket7522

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 605 (Maddox v. City of Dublin) 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

Maddox v. City of Dublin, 89 S.E. 605, 18 Ga. App. 499, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1053 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. It appears from the recorder’s untraversed answer to the writ of certiorari that a witness for the city testified: “I know the defendant Cecil Maddox. I bought a pint of whisky from him at his store on Laurens street in the city of Dublin. It was rye whisky. I bought one pint of whisky and paid him $1 for it. This was on the 24th day of December, 1915.” It is, therefore, apparent that there is no merit in the exceptions, raised by the petition for certiorari, that the evidence failed to show that the offense was committed within two years prior to the commencement of the prosecution, as required by an ordinance of the municipality, and failed to show “that the said crime was committed within the city of Dublin.”

2. The evidence for the city, which was accepted as true by the recorder, being sufficient to authorize the judgment of guilty, the 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

Wade, C. J.

1. It appears from the recorder’s untraversed answer to the writ of certiorari that a witness for the city testified: “I know the defendant Cecil Maddox. I bought a pint of whisky from him at his store on Laurens street in the city of Dublin. It was rye whisky. I bought one pint of whisky and paid him $1 for it. This was on the 24th day of December, 1915.” It is, therefore, apparent that there is no merit in the exceptions, raised by the petition for certiorari, that the evidence failed to show that the offense was committed within two years prior to the commencement of the prosecution, as required by an ordinance of the municipality, and failed to show “that the said crime was committed within the city of Dublin.”

2. The evidence for the city, which was accepted as true by the recorder, being sufficient to authorize the judgment of guilty, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 605, 18 Ga. App. 499, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-city-of-dublin-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack