Horton v. State

• Decision Date: 02 April 1912
• Docket Number: (No. 4,048.)
• Citation: 74 S.E. 559,11 Ga.App. 33
• Parties: HORTON. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

74 S.E. 559

(11 Ga.App. 33)

HORTON.

v.STATE.

(No. 4, 048.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 2, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

District and Prosecuting Attorneys (§ 3*) —Solicitor op City Court?—Appointment. The presiding judge of a city court in this state is authorized to appoint a solicitor pro tern., in the absence of the solicitor of the court, or in the event of his disqualification, to represent the prosecution in criminal cases pending in the court, and the solicitor pro tern, thus appointed would be authorized to sign accusations filed in the court, and in every respect to represent the state in the prosecution of criminal offenses pending in the court.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see District and Prosecuting Attorneys, Cent. Dig. §§ 10-17; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]

Error from City Court of Cairo; J. R. Singletary, Judge.

W. A. Horton was convicted of misdemeanor, and brings error. Affirmed.

Roscoe Luke, R. C. Bell, and Ira Carlisle, for plaintiff in error.

W. J. Willie, Sol., J. Q. Smith, and M. L. Ledford, Sol. pro tem., for the State.

HILL, C. J. This was an accusation in the city court of Cairo, charging the accused with a misdemeanor. A motion was made to quash the accusation, on the grounds that it appears not to have been signed by the solicitor of the city court of Cairo, who was duly elected and qualified as the solicitor of the court, and was the only officer authorized to sign accusations in the city court, but was signed by a solicitor pro tem., and there was no authority for the judge to appoint any one as solicitor pro tem., and the solicitor pro tem. was not authorized by law to sign such accusations as a solicitor pro tem. The court overruled the motion, and this judgment is here for review. We think the motion was properly overruled, for two reasons:

1. The act creating the city court of Cairo (Acts 1906, p. 191) authorizes the judge of that court, where not otherwise expressly provided, to perform any acts necessary to the proper conducting of the business of the court, and that could properly be performed by a judge of the superior court under similar circumstances. Section 4929 of the Civil Code of 1910 provides that the presiding judge, wherever the solicitor general is absent, or is indisposed, or is disqualified, from interest or relationship, to engage in the prosecution, must appointa competent attorney of the circuit to act in his place, where the duly constituted solicitor of that court was for any reason disqualified or absent.

...