Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1905 |
| Citation | 123 Ga. 129,51 S.E. 312 |
| Parties | JONES. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
The act approved December 16, 1895 (Acts 1895, p. 257), had the effect to reincorporate what had formerly been the town of Moultrie as the city of Moultrie; and a writ of error from the city court of that city will not be dismissed on the ground that the act creating that court, which was approved November 13, 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 136), was passed before the passage of the act approved November 20, 1901 (Id. p. 591), granting a new charter to the city of Moultrie.
On the trial of an indictment for a misdemeanor, counsel are entitled as a matter of right to 30 minutes for each side for argument, and it is error for the court to limit the argument to a shorter time.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1657.]
It was improper for the solicitor to say in his argument to the jury, "I know defendant was guilty, or he would not have fled, " there being no evidence of flight in the case; and the court should either have instructed the jury to disregard such argument, or else have granted an appropriate motion for a mistrial.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1669.]
It was error in the present case for the court to charge the jury that flight might be considered as a circumstance of guilt, for the reason that the agreed brief of evidence in the record fails to show anything upon which to base such a charge.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1985.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Moultrie; W. S. Humphreys, Judge.
Alexander Jones was convicted of a misdemeanor, and brings error. Reversed.
Walter A. Way and James Humphreys, for plaintiff in error.
T. W. Mattox, Sol., for the State.
CANDLER, J. 1. By an act approved December 27, 1890 (Acts 1890-91, vol. 2, p. 575), the General Assembly incorporated the town of Moultrie, in Colquitt county. The act approved December 16, 1895 (Acts 1895, p. 257), purported in its title "to reincorporate the town of Moultrie as the city of Moultrie, to confer additional powers on said corporation, and to codify, amend and supersede all previous acts incorporating the town of Moultrie, and grant a new charter to said town under the name of the city of Moultrie." On November 13, 1901, an act was passed establishing the city court of Moul trie (Acts 1901, p. 136), and on November 20, 1901, the General Assembly passed "An act to create a new charter for the city of Moultrie, in the county of Colquitt, and for other purposes" (Acts 1901, p. 591). On the call of this case In this court, a motion was made to dismiss the writ of error, "upon the ground that a bill of exceptions will not lie from the city court of Moultrie to this court, because Moultrie had not been made a city prior to the establishment of the city court therein." It is contended by counsel for the defendant in error that the act of 1895 did not have the effect to change Moultrie from a town into a city and clothe it with the powers of a city; that not until the passage of the act of November 20, 1901, which was subsequent to the passage of the city court act, did Moultrie become a city; and that therefore, the court in question having been established in a town, and not a city, no writ of error will lie to this court. We cannot agree with counsel in this contention. The act of 1895 evinces very plainly the legislative intent that the town of Moultrie shall cease to exist, and the city of Moultrie come into being, from the date of its passage. The purpose of the act, as stated in its title, is "to reincorporate the town of Moultrie as the city of Moultrie, " etc. The fact that the title also sets forth the intention to "supersede all previous acts incorporating the town of Moultrie, and grant a new charter to said town, " does not indicate, in our opinion, an intention that the charter is to be granted to it as a town, especially in the face of the express purpose that Moultrie is to be reincorporated as a city. The italicized words were perhaps loosely used, but in view of the very evident intention of the act, which throughout is in harmony with its title, this inaccuracy will not be allowed to defeat its purpose. What we now hold is in no sense in conflict with the decision of this court in the case of Savannah R. Co. v. Jordan, 113 Ga. 687, 39 S. E. 511. It was there held that "a place once incorporated by an act of the General Assembly as a town will not become one of the cities of this state until there is a legislative enactment expressly declaring that such place is a city, and the mere fact that in different legislative acts referring to such town it is sometimes designated as a 'city' will not make it a municipal corporation of the character indicated by that term." The act of 1895 did not casually and inaccurately refer to Moultrie as a city; it expressly repealed the act by which it was incorporated as a town, and reincorporated it as a city. It came up to the full measure of the requirement laid down by the decision in the Jordan Case. See, in this connection, Sessions v. State, 115 Ga. 19, 41 S. E. 259. It follows that the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be overruled.
2. When the evidence had closed, the court stated that 5 minutes would be allowed to each side for argument. Counsel for the ac-cused protested, and asked for further time, stating that he could not do justice to his client in the time allowed. The court then stated that 10 minutes would be allowed to each side, and counsel for the accused again protested, asking for further time. The court replied: "All right, Major, go ahead, and I will see." Counsel then proceeded with his argument, and, after speaking for 11 1/2 minutes, closed, not having been ordered by the court to stop, though the clerk had been instructed to stop him at the end of 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...75 S.E.2d 26; Broznack v. State, 109 Ga. 514, 516, 35 S.E. 123; Georgia Power Co. v. Puckett, 181 Ga. 386, 182 S.E. 384; Jones v. State, 123 Ga. 129, 131, 51 S.E. 312; Barfield v. State, 179 Ga. 293, 175 S.E. 582; Mitchum v. State, 11 Ga. 615; Washington v. State, 80 Ga.App. 415, 56 S.E.2d ......
-
Waller v. State
... ... attention to numerous decisions, among them:Moore v ... State, 10 Ga.App. 805, 74 S.E. 315; Sparks v ... State, 59 Ga.App. 883, 2 S.E.2d 506; Nixon, et al ... v. State, 14 Ga.App. 261, 80 S.E. 513; Johnson v ... State, 150 Ga. 67, 102 S.E. 439; Jones v ... State, 123 Ga. 129, 51 S.E. 312; Byrd v. State, ... 72 Ga.App. 840, 35 S.E.2d 385; Broznack v. State, ... 109 Ga. 514, 35 S.E. 123; Forster v. State, 60 ... Ga.App. 598, 4 S.E.2d 498. Our attention is called also to ... several references in Bishop's New Criminal Procedure. We ... have ... ...
-
Wash. v. State
...General's statement without any corrective measures; and, consequently, erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Jones v. State, 123 Ga. 129, 51 S.E. 312; Forster v. State, 60 Ga.App. 598, 599, 4 S.E.2d 498; Hammond v. State, supra. The language of the instant case is materially diff......
-
Washington v. State
... ... trior of the facts. For reasons which we have stated the ... court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to ... the Solicitor General's statement without any corrective ... measures; and, consequently, erred in overruling the motion ... for a new trial. Jones v. State, 123 Ga. 129, 51 ... S.E. 312; Forster v. State, 60 Ga.App. 598, 599, 4 ... S.E.2d 498; Hammond v. State, supra ... The ... language of the instant case is materially different from the ... language complained of in Whaley v. State, 177 Ga ... 757(6), 171 S.E ... ...