Ward v. City of Macon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ward v. City of Macon

103 S.E. 191, 25 Ga. App. 320, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 772

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1920

Docket11386

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.E. 191 (Ward v. City of Macon) 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

Ward v. City of Macon, 103 S.E. 191, 25 Ga. App. 320, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The act penalized by the first section of the ordinance of the City of Macon which the plaintiff in error was charged with having violated, to wit, the assembling of two or more persons anywhere within the limits of the city for the purpose of gaming, is not covered by any State law, and that portion of the ordinance is valid. See, as to the principle of law involved, Callaway v. Mims, 5 Ga. App. 9 (62 S. E. 654) ; Athens v. Atlanta, 6 Ga. App. 244 (64 S. E. 711) ; Sheppard v. Jackson, 11 Ga. App. 812 (76 S. E. 367); Jones v. Rome, 15 Ga. App. 41 (82 S. E. 593); Morris v. State, 18 Ga. App. 684 (90 S. E. 361) ; Ellis v. Golden, 18 Ga. App. 749 (90 S. E. 495) ; Allen v. Jennings, 134 Ga. 838 (67 S. E. 883).

2. There was some slight evidence which authorized the finding of the re[321]*321corder, and, that finding having been approved by the judge of ihe superior court, this court is without authority to set it aside.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Certiorari; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. January 27, 1920.

Hunter & Daly, J. L. Wimberly, for plaintiff in error. R. G. Plunkett, P. F. Brock, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The act penalized by the first section of the ordinance of the City of Macon which the plaintiff in error was charged with having violated, to wit, the assembling of two or more persons anywhere within the limits of the city for the purpose of gaming, is not covered by any State law, and that portion of the ordinance is valid. See, as to the principle of law involved, Callaway v. Mims, 5 Ga. App. 9 (62 S. E. 654) ; Athens v. Atlanta, 6 Ga. App. 244 (64 S. E. 711) ; Sheppard v. Jackson, 11 Ga. App. 812 (76 S. E. 367); Jones v. Rome, 15 Ga. App. 41 (82 S. E. 593); Morris v. State, 18 Ga. App. 684 (90 S. E. 361) ; Ellis v. Golden, 18 Ga. App. 749 (90 S. E. 495) ; Allen v. Jennings, 134 Ga. 838 (67 S. E. 883).

2. There was some slight evidence which authorized the finding of the re[321]*321corder, and, that finding having been approved by the judge of ihe superior court, this court is without authority to set it aside.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Certiorari; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. January 27, 1920.

Hunter & Daly, J. L. Wimberly, for plaintiff in error. R. G. Plunkett, P. F. Brock, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 191, 25 Ga. App. 320, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-city-of-macon-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack