Tucker v. City of Moultrie

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tucker v. City of Moultrie

50 S.E. 61, 122 Ga. 160, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 137

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 50 S.E. 61 (Tucker v. City of Moultrie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. City of Moultrie, 50 S.E. 61, 122 Ga. 160, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 137 (Ga. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

1. A municipal corporation has authority, under the general-welfare clause in its charter, to pass an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of unlawful sale. Cunningham v. Griffin, 107 Ga. 690 (2); Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198.

2. A conviction under such an ordinance on one day is no bar to a conviction for keeping the same liquors for that purpose on a.subsequent day.

3. One living in a “ dry town,” who has at his home “ cased whisky ” and “37 pints of liquor in his trunk,” and receives by railroad whisky by the case hilled “Mineral Water,” some of whose visitors act “a little strange,” others depart with wrapped packages, and still others, immediately upon leaving, retire to secluded places and drink whisky from a flask, has no just cause of complaint when the judge of a police court reaches the conclusion that he is keeping liquor for the purpose of unlawful sale, notwithstanding his statement that the liquors were kept exclusively for his own use.

Submitted February 21, — Decided March 2, 1905.

Certiorari. Before Judge Mitchell. Colquitt superior court. January 12, 1905.

J. A. Wilkes, for plaintiff in error. J. I). McKenzie and L. L. Moore, contra.

4. The bond required by the act of 1902 (Acts 1902, p. 105), in cases where application is made for a writ of certiorari to a police court, is merely an appearance bond ; and upon the judgment of such court being affirmed on certiorari it is not lawful to enter a judgment against the sureties on such bond for the amount of the fine imposed in the police court.

5. The evidence warranted the judgment of conviction, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari. But it was erroneous to enter judgment for the amount of the fine imposed in the mayor’s court against the sureties on the certiorari bond; and direction is given that that portion of the judgment be stricken.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur.

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

Cobb, J.

1. A municipal corporation has authority, under the general-welfare clause in its charter, to pass an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of unlawful sale. Cunningham v. Griffin, 107 Ga. 690 (2); Reese v. Newnan, 120 Ga. 198.

2. A conviction under such an ordinance on one day is no bar to a conviction for keeping the same liquors for that purpose on a.subsequent day.

3. One living in a “ dry town,” who has at his home “ cased whisky ” and “37 pints of liquor in his trunk,” and receives by railroad whisky by the case hilled “Mineral Water,” some of whose visitors act “a little strange,” others depart with wrapped packages, and still others, immediately upon leaving, retire to secluded places and drink whisky from a flask, has no just cause of complaint when the judge of a police court reaches the conclusion that he is keeping liquor for the purpose of unlawful sale, notwithstanding his statement that the liquors were kept exclusively for his own use.

Submitted February 21, — Decided March 2, 1905.

Certiorari. Before Judge Mitchell. Colquitt superior court. January 12, 1905.

J. A. Wilkes, for plaintiff in error. J. I). McKenzie and L. L. Moore, contra.

4. The bond required by the act of 1902 (Acts 1902, p. 105), in cases where application is made for a writ of certiorari to a police court, is merely an appearance bond ; and upon the judgment of such court being affirmed on certiorari it is not lawful to enter a judgment against the sureties on such bond for the amount of the fine imposed in the police court.

5. The evidence warranted the judgment of conviction, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari. But it was erroneous to enter judgment for the amount of the fine imposed in the mayor’s court against the sureties on the certiorari bond; and direction is given that that portion of the judgment be stricken.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 S.E. 61, 122 Ga. 160, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-city-of-moultrie-ga-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack