Purtell v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Purtell v. City of Atlanta

96 S.E. 1047, 22 Ga. App. 632, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 643

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1918

Docket9908

StatusPublished

This text of 96 S.E. 1047 (Purtell 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

Purtell v. City of Atlanta, 96 S.E. 1047, 22 Ga. App. 632, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 643 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. While some illegal evidence was admitted over the objections of the defendant, a new trial of the case 'is not required, since the legal evidence introduced demanded a finding by the recorder (exercising by virtue of his office the functions of both judge and jury) th^t the defendant had been carrying on the business of a private detective, or detective agency, within the meaning of sections 2024 and 2027 of the Code of the City of Atlanta of 1910, which make it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, to engage in such a business without first obtaining a license as provided therein. And it was admitted by the defendant that he had not obtained such a license.

2. The judge'of the superior court did not err ino overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. While some illegal evidence was admitted over the objections of the defendant, a new trial of the case 'is not required, since the legal evidence introduced demanded a finding by the recorder (exercising by virtue of his office the functions of both judge and jury) th^t the defendant had been carrying on the business of a private detective, or detective agency, within the meaning of sections 2024 and 2027 of the Code of the City of Atlanta of 1910, which make it an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, to engage in such a business without first obtaining a license as provided therein. And it was admitted by the defendant that he had not obtained such a license.

2. The judge'of the superior court did not err ino overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E. 1047, 22 Ga. App. 632, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purtell-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1918.