Thomas v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thomas v. City of Atlanta

84 S.E. 964, 16 Ga. App. 227, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 554

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1915

Docket6339

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 964 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. City of Atlanta, 84 S.E. 964, 16 Ga. App. 227, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 554 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. There was proof of one illegal sale of liquor, which was sufficient to show that the liquor sold was kept- on the particular occasion for the purpose of illegal sale; and this evidence justified the conviction of the defendant under a municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of liquor for illegal sale. Rooney v. Augusta, 117 Ga. 709 (45 S. E. [228]*22872); Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198 (47 S. E. 560); Rice v. Eatonton, 15 Ga. App. 505 (83 S. E. 868-869), and cases there cited.

Decided April 20, 1915.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. January 12, 1915.

G. G. Battle, for plaintiff in error. J. L. May son, W. D. Ellis Jr., contra.

(a) In Moran v. Atlanta, 120 Ga. 840 (48 S. E. 324), relied upon by the plaintiff in error, the defendant was convicted under an ordinance against “retailing spirituous and malt liquors without a license,” which constituted an offense against a penal statute of this State; and this ordinance, passed under the “general welfare clause” of the charter of the city, was itself held to be invalid and the conviction of the defendant thereunder was consequently set aside. On the other hand, municipal ordinances directed against the keeping of liquor for the purpose of illegal sale have been repeatedly sustained by the Supreme Court and by this court, and proof of one sale has been repeatedly held to be sufficient to establish the purpose for which the liquor was kept. Paulk v. Sycamore, 104 Ga. 728 (31 S. E. 200); Brown v. Social Circle, 105 Ga. 834 (32 S. E. 141); Coggins v. Griffin, 5 Ga. App. 1 (62 S. E. 659); and numerous other cases.

2. There was evidence to support the finding of the recorder in this ease; and since the petition for certiorari assigned error only because of the alleged insufficiency of such evidence, this court will not disturb the action of the judge of the superior court in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., disqualified.

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

Wade, J.

1. There was proof of one illegal sale of liquor, which was sufficient to show that the liquor sold was kept- on the particular occasion for the purpose of illegal sale; and this evidence justified the conviction of the defendant under a municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of liquor for illegal sale. Rooney v. Augusta, 117 Ga. 709 (45 S. E. [228]*22872); Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198 (47 S. E. 560); Rice v. Eatonton, 15 Ga. App. 505 (83 S. E. 868-869), and cases there cited.

Decided April 20, 1915.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. January 12, 1915.

G. G. Battle, for plaintiff in error. J. L. May son, W. D. Ellis Jr., contra.

(a) In Moran v. Atlanta, 120 Ga. 840 (48 S. E. 324), relied upon by the plaintiff in error, the defendant was convicted under an ordinance against “retailing spirituous and malt liquors without a license,” which constituted an offense against a penal statute of this State; and this ordinance, passed under the “general welfare clause” of the charter of the city, was itself held to be invalid and the conviction of the defendant thereunder was consequently set aside. On the other hand, municipal ordinances directed against the keeping of liquor for the purpose of illegal sale have been repeatedly sustained by the Supreme Court and by this court, and proof of one sale has been repeatedly held to be sufficient to establish the purpose for which the liquor was kept. Paulk v. Sycamore, 104 Ga. 728 (31 S. E. 200); Brown v. Social Circle, 105 Ga. 834 (32 S. E. 141); Coggins v. Griffin, 5 Ga. App. 1 (62 S. E. 659); and numerous other cases.

2. There was evidence to support the finding of the recorder in this ease; and since the petition for certiorari assigned error only because of the alleged insufficiency of such evidence, this court will not disturb the action of the judge of the superior court in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 964, 16 Ga. App. 227, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack