Mons v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mons v. State

66 S.E.2d 159, 84 Ga. App. 340, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 689

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 16, 1951

Docket33635

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 66 S.E.2d 159 (Mons 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

Mons v. State, 66 S.E.2d 159, 84 Ga. App. 340, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

The answer of the trial judge to the writ of certiorari, when not excepted to or traversed, will alone be considered in ascertaining what occurred upon the trial of the case. See Davis v. Sawtell, 7 Ga. App. 313 (2) (66 S. E. 809); Carter v. State, 3 Ga. App. 476 (1) (60 S. E. 123); Artope v. Macon & Birmingham Ry. Co., 110 Ga. 346 (2) (35 S. E. 657); Martin v. State, 43 Ga. App. 334 (158 S. E. 803); Hopkins v. Southern Ry. Co., 110 Ga. 85 (1) (35 S. E. 307).

2. The accusation here charges the defendant with operating an automobile on Bankhead Highway, a public highway of said State and county, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The answer of the trial judge to the petition for certiorari affirmatively shows that a witness for the State testified that the defendant “drove into a filling station from Bankhead Highway which he also stated was a public highway of Fulton County, Georgia.” The assignment of error on the ground that the State failed to prove that the defendant drove an automobile on Bankhead highway is without merit. The usual connotation of the words “into” and “from” as used in this testimony is that the defendant drove from a point within the confines of Bank-head Highway to a point within the confines of the premises on which the filling station was located. See Hazlehurst v. Freeman, 52 Ga. 244, 245. This testimony in connection with testimony that Bank-head Highway is a public highway is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was actually operating his automobile on the Bankhead Highway, which is a public highway.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that at the time the defendant entered the filling station from Bankhead Highway he was under the influence of intoxicants. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the petition for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P.J., and Gardner, J., concur. *341 Frank A. Bowers, for plaintiff in error. John I. Kelley, Solicitor, Paul Webb, Solicitor-General, Robert L. O’Neil, Charlie 0. Murphy, contra.

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

Townsend, J.

The answer of the trial judge to the writ of certiorari, when not excepted to or traversed, will alone be considered in ascertaining what occurred upon the trial of the case. See Davis v. Sawtell, 7 Ga. App. 313 (2) (66 S. E. 809); Carter v. State, 3 Ga. App. 476 (1) (60 S. E. 123); Artope v. Macon & Birmingham Ry. Co., 110 Ga. 346 (2) (35 S. E. 657); Martin v. State, 43 Ga. App. 334 (158 S. E. 803); Hopkins v. Southern Ry. Co., 110 Ga. 85 (1) (35 S. E. 307).

2. The accusation here charges the defendant with operating an automobile on Bankhead Highway, a public highway of said State and county, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The answer of the trial judge to the petition for certiorari affirmatively shows that a witness for the State testified that the defendant “drove into a filling station from Bankhead Highway which he also stated was a public highway of Fulton County, Georgia.” The assignment of error on the ground that the State failed to prove that the defendant drove an automobile on Bankhead highway is without merit. The usual connotation of the words “into” and “from” as used in this testimony is that the defendant drove from a point within the confines of Bank-head Highway to a point within the confines of the premises on which the filling station was located. See Hazlehurst v. Freeman, 52 Ga. 244, 245. This testimony in connection with testimony that Bank-head Highway is a public highway is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was actually operating his automobile on the Bankhead Highway, which is a public highway.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that at the time the defendant entered the filling station from Bankhead Highway he was under the influence of intoxicants. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the petition for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P.J., and Gardner, J., concur. *341 Frank A. Bowers, for plaintiff in error. John I. Kelley, Solicitor, Paul Webb, Solicitor-General, Robert L. O’Neil, Charlie 0. Murphy, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E.2d 159, 84 Ga. App. 340, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mons-v-state-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack