Toney v. City of Atlanta
64 S.E. 1106, 6 Ga. App. 356, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 294
Opinion
1. Por the most part this ease is controlled, by Oallanowy v. Allanta, ante.
2. A clerk who in a municipality sells intoxicating liquor kept by his employer in his place of business may be convicted of violating the municipal ordinance forbidding the keeping of liquor on hand for the purposes of illegal sale. By analogy to the rule in misdemeanor eases, all who participate either directly or aceessorially in the violation of a municipal ordinance may be held as principals. Hendrix v. State, 5 Ga. App. 819 (63 S. E. 939). Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Toney v. City of Atlanta, 64 S.E. 1106, 6 Ga. App. 356, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).
64 S.E. 1106 (Toney v. City of Atlanta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McBrearty v. Mayor of Macon
85 S.E. 608 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Morse v. Mayor of Macon
72 S.E. 284 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Harbuck v. City of Atlanta
67 S.E. 108 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Stradley v. City of Atlanta
67 S.E. 107 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)