Case Name: SHADRICK v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1924-08-08
Citations: 32 Ga. App. 544
Docket Number: 15703
Parties: SHADRICK v. THE STATE.
Judges: Broyles, C. J., and Buhe, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 544–546

Head Matter:
15703.
SHADRICK v. THE STATE.
The allegation that the accused operated an automobile “without then and there having fastened on the rear of said automobile, in a position to be plainly visible, the number plate assigned to said automobile,” was not subject to the demurrer; and the indictment was not demurrable on other grounds stated.
Decided August 8, 1924.
Indictment for violation of automobile law; from Quitman superior court — Judge Eve presiding. April 22, 1924.
The indictment charged E. L. Shadrick with “the offense of misdemeanor; for that . . on the 9th day of January, 1924, in the county aforesaid,” he did “unlawfully and with force of arms use and operate a motor-vehicle, to wit, an automobile, on the streets and highways of said State, to wit, upon the public street in the town of Georgetown, Ga., known, as Main Street, and upon the public road known as Eufaula and Cuthbert public road, leading from Eufaula, Ala., to Cuthbert, Ga., without then and there having fastened on the rear of said automobile, in a position to be plainly visible, the number plate assigned to said automobile; contrary to the laws of said State,” etc. The demurrer was on the grounds: (1) No offense is set forth. (2) The indictment is too indefinite and uncertain in the allegation as to visibility of number plate; the phrase “plainly visible” is capable of too many and varied interpretations; what might be visible to a child by moonlight could probably be seen only with difficulty by an old man at midday, and the allegation is so indefinite as to make the question of „ criminality dependent on the idiosyncrasies of the men constituting the court and jury. (3) “Because all of the objections raised in paragraph 2 hereof also apply to § 828(c) of Park’s Ann. Code, and to § 828 (bb) of Park’s Ann. Code, vol. 8, wherein it is provided that every vehicle shall display number plate in rear ‘plainly visible,’ etc.; and for further reason that said sections do not provide that it is the duty of any particular person as owner, driver, passenger to so display such number plate.” (4) “Because § 828 (x) of Park’s Code, vol. 8, provides that the owner of a motor-vehicle may have until March 1st of each year to provide such vehicle with number plate, whereas said bill of'indictment sets forth an offense as of January 9th, 1924.”
J. B. McDonald, for plaintiff in error.
B. T. Gastelloio, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold, B. G. Rill, contra.

Opinion:
Bloodworth, J.
1. The defendant specifically abandons the assignment of error based upon the overruling of his plea in abatement, and also the assignment of error based upon the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment.
2. The court properly overruled the demurrer to the indictment "upon each and every ground therein."
3. It is not insisted that the verdict is without evidence to support it.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Buhe, J., concur.