Dougherty County Council of Architects v. Beckanstin, 37720

• Decision Date: 02 December 1959
• Docket Number: No. 37720,No. 1,37720,1
• Citation: 112 S.E.2d 423,100 Ga.App. 790
• Parties: DOUGERTY COUNTY COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTS, etc., et al. v. H. H. BECKANSTIN
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 423

112 S.E.2d 423

100 Ga.App. 790

DOUGERTY COUNTY COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTS, etc., et al. v. H. H. BECKANSTIN.

No. 37720.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Dec. 2, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court

1. (a) The sustaining of a certiorari by a superior court judge has the affect of a first grant of a new trial and unless a verdict is demanded, the superior court judge's decision will not be disturbed. (b) To revoke an architect's certificate to practice under the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 84-319, it is necessary to show the alleged misrepresentation was material to issuance of the certificate.

2. The superior court judge did not err in directing that the defendant be exonerated as a matter of law.

This case first appeared before this court in Dougherty County Council of Architects v. Beckanstin, 100 Ga.App. 84, 110 S.E.2d 85, which held that the superior court erred in granting the certiorari to review a hearing of the State Board of Architect Examiners which had revoked the certificate of the defendant in error, hereinafter called the defendant, to practice architecture. This judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court in Beckanstin v. Dougherty County Council of Architects, 215 Ga. 543, 111 S.E.2d 361, and the case is now before this court to be decided upon the merits.

Under the provisions of § 84-320, Dougherty County Council of Architects, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, prepared charges against the defendant before the State Board of Architect Examiners, hereinafter referred to as the board, as follows: 'The Dougherty County Council of Architects and Engineers, Inc., wishes to charge that the certificate of registration of Mr. Harry Hyman Beckanstin as architect was obtained through misrepresentation in that Mr. Beckanstin states on his application for registration that he attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1915-1917.' A hearing was held in regular order. Upon advice of counsel and other grounds the defendant refused to testify. Thereupon Mr. Parham of the Attorney General's office and Mr. James O. Skrine were sworn and testified that the defendant had stated at a prior hearing that he had attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology for six months in 1915; that the defendant had stated he attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology two months in 1916, being January and February; that the defendant had stated that he did not attend this institute up to the beginning of the school year 1917. The defendant's application for an architect's certificate was placed in evidence, the pertinent section under the heading 'Schooling and Experience. * * *' 'Hartford Public Highschool--Hartford Connecticut--1911-1915. Mass. Inst. of Technology (then Boston, Mass., now--Cambridge, Mass.) 1915-1917.'

After argument of counsel the board found the defendant guilty as charged and revoked the license of the defendant to practice architecture. The defendant filed a certiorari to the Superior Court of Fulton County which was granted. After a hearing the superior court judge passed the following order on March 18, 1959: 'The foregoing certiorari coming on for hearing before me and after argument and review of the record, the court finds that there is no evidence of a material misrepresentation and it is ordered that the writ of certiorari is sustained and the action of the Georgia State Board of Examination, Qualification and Registration of Architects in revoking the license and certificate of H. H. Beckanstin is reversed and set aside.'

On March 30, 1959, the court entered a further order as follows: 'It is the judgment of the court that petitioner, H. H. Beckanstin, is exonerated of the charge made against him in the complaint in this case.'

It is to these orders that the plaintiff in error excepts and assigns as error for this court to review.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., J. R. Parham, Asst. Atty. Gen., James P. Groton, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Wotton, Long & Jones, Grigsby H. Wotton, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

1. (a) The first question to be decided is to determine if the superior court judge erred in sustaining the certiorari. The effect of sustaining a certiorari is the same as the first grant of a new trial. Jeffers v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 1 Ga.App. 331, 57 S.E. 923; Folds v. Harris, 34 Ga.App. 445, 129 S.E. 664; Peacock v. American Plant Co., 49 Ga.App. 267, 175 S.E. 262. As the plaintiff in error's counsel in his excellent brief concedes that the granting of a certiorari is discretionary with the trial judge, and as there is no showing of an abuse of discretion, this court will not interfere with the first grant of a new trial. Stalnaker v. Beach, 18 Ga.App. 172, 88 S.E. 991. However the trial judge was correct in sustaining the certiorari for another reason as discussed below.

(b) The board was proceeding under the provision of Code (Ann.) § 84-319(a) 'When it is shown that the certificate was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.' It was...