Munday v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Munday v. State

100 S.E. 19, 24 Ga. App. 111, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 434

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 19, 1919

Docket10565

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 19 (Munday 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

Munday v. State, 100 S.E. 19, 24 Ga. App. 111, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboxxes, P. J.

Under the principle underlying the ruling in Cooper v. Brown, 10 Ga. App. 730 (73 S. E. 1101), where a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense and has filed a bill of exceptions and given bond for his appearance to abide the final judgment in the case, [112]*112and pending tlie hearing of the writ of error he is convicted of another criminal offense and sentenced to the chain-gang, from which he escapes, the bond given in the first case becomes functus officio and the obligation of the sureties is annulled. It follows that the defendant is a fugitive from justice not only in the latter case but in the first one; and the bill of exceptions will be dismissed, unless the defendant gives himself up to the officers of the law within thirty days from the time the case was submitted to this court. Madden v. State, 70 Ga. 383; Osborn v. Slate, 70 Ga. 731; Gentry v. State, 91 Ga. 669 (17 S. E. 956).

Decided July 19, 1919.

Conviction of assault and battery; from Morgan superior court —Judge Park. April 14, 1919.

Allen & Pollle, for plaintiff in error. Doyle Campbell, solicitor, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Bboxxes, P. J.

Under the principle underlying the ruling in Cooper v. Brown, 10 Ga. App. 730 (73 S. E. 1101), where a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense and has filed a bill of exceptions and given bond for his appearance to abide the final judgment in the case, [112]*112and pending tlie hearing of the writ of error he is convicted of another criminal offense and sentenced to the chain-gang, from which he escapes, the bond given in the first case becomes functus officio and the obligation of the sureties is annulled. It follows that the defendant is a fugitive from justice not only in the latter case but in the first one; and the bill of exceptions will be dismissed, unless the defendant gives himself up to the officers of the law within thirty days from the time the case was submitted to this court. Madden v. State, 70 Ga. 383; Osborn v. Slate, 70 Ga. 731; Gentry v. State, 91 Ga. 669 (17 S. E. 956).

Decided July 19, 1919.

Conviction of assault and battery; from Morgan superior court —Judge Park. April 14, 1919.

Allen & Pollle, for plaintiff in error. Doyle Campbell, solicitor, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 19, 24 Ga. App. 111, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munday-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack