Smith v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. City of Atlanta

1 S.E.2d 46, 59 Ga. App. 357, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 22

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1939

Docket27315

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.E.2d 46 (Smith 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

Smith v. City of Atlanta, 1 S.E.2d 46, 59 Ga. App. 357, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 22 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This was a certiorari proceeding from a judgment in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta. It is recited in the petition for certiorari that the defendant was tried for the offense of disorderly conduct; that the prosecution introduced the testimony of several witnesses and announced that it rested; that thereupon counsel for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the ease on the ground that the evidence introduced failed to prove the venue, since it did not show that the alleged offense was committed in the City of Atlanta; that the recorder overruled the motion; that the defendant then introduced several witnesses who, on cross-examination by the recorder, testified that the alleged offense was committed in the City of Atlanta. The petition for certiorari assigns as error the refusal of the recorder to dismiss the case. The recorder had the right, in his discretion, to refuse to dismiss the case, and to prove, by a cross-examination of the witnesses for the defense, that the alleged offense was committed, in the City of Atlanta. See Wiggins v. State, 80 Ga. 468 (3) (5 S. E. 503); Merritt v. State, 168 Ga. 753 (4) (149 S. E. 46); Rice v. Ware, 3 Ga. App. 573 (1-a) (60 S. E. 301); Guthas v. State, 54 Ga. App. 217 (3) (187 S. E. 847). The overruling of the certiorari was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This was a certiorari proceeding from a judgment in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta. It is recited in the petition for certiorari that the defendant was tried for the offense of disorderly conduct; that the prosecution introduced the testimony of several witnesses and announced that it rested; that thereupon counsel for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the ease on the ground that the evidence introduced failed to prove the venue, since it did not show that the alleged offense was committed in the City of Atlanta; that the recorder overruled the motion; that the defendant then introduced several witnesses who, on cross-examination by the recorder, testified that the alleged offense was committed in the City of Atlanta. The petition for certiorari assigns as error the refusal of the recorder to dismiss the case. The recorder had the right, in his discretion, to refuse to dismiss the case, and to prove, by a cross-examination of the witnesses for the defense, that the alleged offense was committed, in the City of Atlanta. See Wiggins v. State, 80 Ga. 468 (3) (5 S. E. 503); Merritt v. State, 168 Ga. 753 (4) (149 S. E. 46); Rice v. Ware, 3 Ga. App. 573 (1-a) (60 S. E. 301); Guthas v. State, 54 Ga. App. 217 (3) (187 S. E. 847). The overruling of the certiorari was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 46, 59 Ga. App. 357, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack