Welch v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Welch v. State

84 S.E.2d 838, 91 Ga. App. 86, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 865

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1954

Docket35409

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.E.2d 838 (Welch v. State) 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

Welch v. State, 84 S.E.2d 838, 91 Ga. App. 86, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

1. It is the duty of the solicitor-general to represent the State in all cases pending in the superior courts of his circuit and in all cases taken from such superior courts to the Court of Appeals. Code (Ann.) § 2-4602. This court takes judicial cognizance that the solicitor-general of the Atlanta Circuit is Paul Webb. Ponder v. Shumans, 80 Ga. 505 (2) (5 S. E. 502); Abrams v. State, 121 Ga. 170 (1) (48 S. E. 965); Bailey v. McAlpin, 122 Ga. 616 (1) (50 S. E. 388); Marshall v. Walker, 47 Ga. App. 195 (3) (170 S. E. 267). The record here discloses that the bill of exceptions was not served upon such solicitor-general.

2. After the sanction by the judge of a supérior court of the application [87]*87for a writ of certiorari to review errors allegedly committed in a criminal case in an inferior judicatory (here the Criminal Court of Eulton County), the case becomes one pending in such superior court. Culbreth v. State, 115 Ga. 242 (41 S. E. 594); McElhannon v. State, 112 Ga. 221 (37 S. E. 402); Moore v. State, 96 Ga. 309 (22 S. E. 960); Butts v. State, 90 Ga. 450 (16 S. E. 96).

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. Decided November 12, 1954. Vester M. Owriby, for plaintiff in error.' John I. Kelley, Solicitor, Charlie O. Murphy, contra.

3. It follows that, where a misdemeanor was tried in the Criminal Court of Eulton County, and from the judgment therein a certiorari was taken to the Superior Court of Fulton County, and, upon judgment being entered after hearing, overruling, and denying the petition for certiorari, a bill of exceptions was sued out to this court, such bill of exceptions should have been served upon Paul Webb, Solicitor-General of the Atlanta Circuit. It appearing that he was not so served, and that he did not acknowledge or waive service, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions must be granted. Hall v. State, 100 Ga. 311 (27 S. E. 179); Holliman v. Mayor &c. of Hawkinsville, 109 Ga. 107, 109 (34 S. E. 214); Mahaffey v. State, 15 Ga. App. 483 (83 S. E. 795).

Writ of enor dismissed.

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

Townsend, J.

1. It is the duty of the solicitor-general to represent the State in all cases pending in the superior courts of his circuit and in all cases taken from such superior courts to the Court of Appeals. Code (Ann.) § 2-4602. This court takes judicial cognizance that the solicitor-general of the Atlanta Circuit is Paul Webb. Ponder v. Shumans, 80 Ga. 505 (2) (5 S. E. 502); Abrams v. State, 121 Ga. 170 (1) (48 S. E. 965); Bailey v. McAlpin, 122 Ga. 616 (1) (50 S. E. 388); Marshall v. Walker, 47 Ga. App. 195 (3) (170 S. E. 267). The record here discloses that the bill of exceptions was not served upon such solicitor-general.

2. After the sanction by the judge of a supérior court of the application [87]*87for a writ of certiorari to review errors allegedly committed in a criminal case in an inferior judicatory (here the Criminal Court of Eulton County), the case becomes one pending in such superior court. Culbreth v. State, 115 Ga. 242 (41 S. E. 594); McElhannon v. State, 112 Ga. 221 (37 S. E. 402); Moore v. State, 96 Ga. 309 (22 S. E. 960); Butts v. State, 90 Ga. 450 (16 S. E. 96).

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. Decided November 12, 1954. Vester M. Owriby, for plaintiff in error.' John I. Kelley, Solicitor, Charlie O. Murphy, contra.

3. It follows that, where a misdemeanor was tried in the Criminal Court of Eulton County, and from the judgment therein a certiorari was taken to the Superior Court of Fulton County, and, upon judgment being entered after hearing, overruling, and denying the petition for certiorari, a bill of exceptions was sued out to this court, such bill of exceptions should have been served upon Paul Webb, Solicitor-General of the Atlanta Circuit. It appearing that he was not so served, and that he did not acknowledge or waive service, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions must be granted. Hall v. State, 100 Ga. 311 (27 S. E. 179); Holliman v. Mayor &c. of Hawkinsville, 109 Ga. 107, 109 (34 S. E. 214); Mahaffey v. State, 15 Ga. App. 483 (83 S. E. 795).

Writ of enor dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E.2d 838, 91 Ga. App. 86, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-state-gactapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack