Morton v. Nelms
| Decision Date | 29 October 1903 |
| Citation | 45 S.E. 616,118 Ga. 786 |
| Parties | MORTON. v. NELMS, Sheriff. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
VAGRANCY—INDICTMENT—VERDICT—BOND— CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. Under the act approved August 17, 1903, an accusation charging that the accused was able to work, and had no property, and had no visible or known means of a fair, honest, and reputable livelihood, set forth an offense against the penal laws of this state.
2. In such case a verdict of guilty meant that the accused was guilty of the acts specified in the accusation.
3. The act above cited makes penal the various acts of vagrancy therein enumerated. The refusal to give bond is not made the gist of the offense, or any part of the offense, but the convict is allowed, by giving the prescribed bond, to relieve himself of the punishment.
4. The Legislature has authority, in providing for a bond in a criminal case, to prescribe that it shall be given to a person or to a court. Whether such bond will be enforceable is a question which will arise when the bond has been given, and suit brought thereon, and does not concern one who has never given the bond.
5. This court cannot pass upon objections to a statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional, when the objection's do not point out what provision of the Constitution is violated. Brown v. State, 39 S. E. 873, 114 Ga. 60.
v 5. See Constitutional Law, vol. 10, Cent. Dig. § 44.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Application by Jim Morton for a writ of habeas corpus to J. W. Nelms, Sheriff. Prom an order refusing the writ, Morton brings error. Aflirmed.
S. C. Crane, for plaintiff in error.
A. J. Orme, Sol., for defendant in error.
SIMMONS, C. J. Judgment aflirmed. All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Family Finance Co v. Allman
...insufficient to raise the question of the unconstitionality of the law or the statute sought to be brought in question. Morton v. Nelms, 118 Ga. 786 (5), 45 S. E. 616; Almand v. Pate, 143 Ga. 711 (2), 85 S. E. 909. 2. Nor can a statute of this state which it is sought to set aside as uncons......
-
Coleman v. Nelms
...under the act mentioned, after verdict, is a proceeding entirely before the court, and requires no action by the jury. See Morton v. Nelms, 45 S. E. 616, 118 Ga. 786. 3. The verdict of a jury having been rendered, as above indicated, even if sentence was improperly passed upon the accused w......