Sessions v. State

• Decision Date: 26 March 1902
• Citation: 41 S.E. 259,115 Ga. 18
• Parties: SESSIONS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

41 S.E. 259

115 Ga. 18

SESSIONS

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 26, 1902.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—CREATION—STATUTES—TITLE OF ACT—ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

1.An act which declares that the government of the city of Sandersville shall consist of a mayor and five aldermen, who are constituted a body corporate under the name and style of "the mayor and council of the city of Sandersville, " and then proceeds to define the powers of the city of Sandersville, referring in every instance to that corporation as the "city of Sandersville, " or the "corporation of Sandersville, " and contains a clause expressly repealing all laws relating to the town of Sandersville, constitutes the corporation of Sandersville a city.

2.Legislation having the effect to change the town of Sandersville into the city of Sandersville is constitutional, under an act entitled an act "to alter and amend the several acts incorporating the town of Sandersville, and to confer upon said town of Sandersville a municipal government, with all the rights and privileges usually enjoyed by citizens of Georgia, as herein set forth."

3.When, at a trial under an indictment for stabbing, it appeared from the evidence for the state that the accused was guilty of the offense charged, and from the statement of the accused that he was guilty of assault and battery only, it was not erroneous to charge the jury that if they believed the accused was not guilty of the offense of stabbing they might convict him of the offense of assault and battery.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Sandersville; P. R. Taliaferro, Judge.

Bob Sessions was convicted of assault, and brings error.Affirmed.

Gus H. Howard, for plaintiff in error.

J. E. Hyman, for the State.

COBB, J. 1.An examination of the act creating the city court of Sandersville (Acts 1901, p. 164) shows that the court is located in Sandersville, which is the county site of Washington county, and that as to Jurisdiction, powers, etc., the court created thereby appears to be a city court, within themeaning of that term as used in the constitution.SeeWelborne v. State.114 Ga. 793, 40 S. E. 857.Whether the judgments of that court can be reviewed in the supreme court on direct writ of error depends upon the determination of the question as to whether Sandersville was a city at the date of the approval of the act which created the court.In 1872(Acts 1872, p. 248) the general assembly passed an act which provided "that the municipal government of the city of Sandersville shall consist of a mayor and five aldermen, who are hereby constituted a body corporate, under the name and style of the mayor and council of the city of Sandersville."The act then proceeds to define the powers of the city of Sandersville, and the corporation created by the act is referred to in the act either as the city of Sandersville or the corporation of Sandersville.The only time in which the expression "town of Sandersville" appears in the act is in the last section, which expressly repeals all acts incorporating the town of Sandersville.The language of the act is sufficient to indicate a legislative intention to incorporate Sandersville as a city, and the language of the first section of the act is equivalent to a legislative declaration to this effect.This case differs from the case of Railway Co. v. Jordan, 113 Ga. 687, 39 S. E. 511, in this: the act amending the charter of the town of Valdosta provided that the municipal government of the city of Valdosta shall be vested in a mayor and six councilmen, who are hereby costituted a body corporate under the name and style "of mayor and council of Valdosta."In the act Valdosta is sometimes referred to as a city and sometimes as a town.There was no express declaration in the act that the town of Valdosta should thereafter be known as a city, and there was nothing in the corporate name to indicate that the legislature intended it should be a city, the word "city" being entirely omitted from the corporate name.There was in the act in relation to Valdosta neither an express declaration that Valdosta should be a city, nor anything which was equivalent to such a declaration.

2.The language in the body of the act in relation to Sandersville being sufficient, in our opinion, to incorporate that place as a city, the question arises whether the title to this act was broad enough to authorize legislation changing the town of Sandersville into the city of Sandersville.The title was in these words: "An act to alter and amend the several acts incorporating the town of Sandersville, and to confer upon said town of Sandersville a municipal government, with all the rights and privileges usually enjoyed by citizens of Georgia, as are herein set forth."Upon a casual reading of this title the impression would be created that the purpose of the act was simply to change or modify the laws in reference to the town of Sandersville, leaving that corporation still a town; there being nothing in the title expressly indicating an intention to change the character of the municipality.Whether the title is broad enough to cover legislation changing Sandersville from a town to a city depends, to a large extent, upon the meaning of three words in the title: "alter, ""amend, " and "municipal.""Alter" has been defined: To make a change; to modify; to vary in some degree.Black, Law Diet To alter means to make a thing different from what it was.2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.)p. 179.To cause to be different in some respect; to make change in; vary in some degree, without making an entire change.Stand....