Monford v. State

• Decision Date: 04 February 1902
• Citation: 40 S.E. 798,114 Ga. 528
• Parties: MONFORD v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

40 S.E. 798

114 Ga. 528

MONFORD

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 4, 1902.

SUPREME COURT—WRIT OF ERROR FROM CITY COURT.

A writ of error does not lie to the supreme court from a "city court, " when the act for the establishment of the same, approved November 22, 1900, does not provide for jury trials by a full panel of 12 jurors. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Amerlcus; C. R. Crisp, Judge.

C. C. Monford was convicted of violating the local option law, and brings error. Dismissed.

J. R. Williams and R. L. Maynard, for plaintiff in error.

F. A, Hooper, Sol. Gen., for the State.

FISH, J. C. C. Monford was tried, and found guilty by a jury, in the city court of Americus, of violating the general local option liquor law. He made a motion for a new trial, which being overruled, he sued out a bill of exceptions, and brought the case to tills court Upon the call of the case here, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that the supreme court has no jurisdiction to entertain such writ from the city court of Americus, for the reason that the act creating such city court provides that only six jurors shall constitute a trial jury therein, whereas the constitution requires that there shall be a trial jury of twelve jurors in the city courts authorized to grant new trials, and from which writs of error lie to the supreme court In our opinion this motion should be sustained. The only city courts from which writs of error lie to the supreme court are the city courts of Atlanta and Savannah, and such other like courts as have been established in other cities since the ratilication of the present constitution (Const, art 6, § 4, par. 5), and no other "city courts" are authorized to grant new trials (Id. par. C; Stewart v. State, 98 Ga. 202, 25 S. B. 424). The constitution requires that there shall be a trial or traverse jury in the city courts consisting of twelve jurors. This is the clear meaning of paragraph 1, § 18, art 6. It reads as follows: "The right of trial by jury, except where it is otherwise provided in this constitution, shall remain inviolate, but the general assembly may prescribe any number, not less than five, to constitute a trial or traverse jury In courts other than the superior or city courts." By the phrase, "trial by jury, " undoubted reference was had to a jury of twelve, and there could not, under this paragraph, be a less number In city courts. And the "city courts" here indicated are such alone as have power to grant new trials and from which writs of error lie to this court. See Wells v. Newton, 101 Ga. 141, 28 S. E. 640. It follows, therefore, that a city court which, under the act creating it is provided with a trial jury composed of less than twelve jurors is not the kind of city court which, under the constitution, can grant new trials and from which writs of error lie to the supreme court. The act establishing the city court of Americus (Acts 1900, p. 93) provides for a trial jury of only six jurors, and consequently no writ of error lies from that court to this court As a necessary result, the present writ of error must be dismissed.

The rulings in Kneeland v. State, 02 Ga. 395, and Downing v. State, 66 Ga. 110, and Id. 160, are, upon a review thereof, overruled, in so far as they are in conflict with the decision now rendered. In the Knee-land Case it was laid down that the constitutional provision prohibiting a jury of less than twelve in the city courts of this state was not "intended to operate upon the then existing machinery of the city courts until some other machinery be provided by law."...