Case Name: WHITE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1944-06-07
Citations: 71 Ga. App. 512
Docket Number: 30376
Parties: WHITE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
Judges: MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 512–517

Head Matter:
30376.
WHITE v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
Decided June 7, 1944.
Rehearing denied July 28, 1944.
Houston White, Ezra E. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
Durwood T. Pye, Joseph J. Fine, Ralph H. Pharr, John A. BoyIcin, solicitor-general, contra.

Opinion:
Broyles, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The petition for certiorari shows that while the court was trying the case, the petitioner in open court used to and of the judge the following language: "T think your Honor has such antagonism toward me personally that I just can't, your Honor, seem to try a case before you without you jumping on me unnecessarily. That is not necessarjq but that is the way I feel about it."
The first question presented is, was that language contemptuous ? In our opinion it clearly implied that the judge was not an impartial and upright jurist, but, on the contrary, that he allowed his personal feelings of antagonism to White to influence his rulings in the case then on trial. We hold that the language was disrespectful and contemptuous, and authorized the sentence imposed by the trial judge.
The next.question is, can a judgment for a direct contempt of court be reviewed by the writ of certiorari?
There are many decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court which hold that an appeal does not lie from such a judgment. However, it is not necessary for a decision of this case to answer that question. Our holding is, that the petition for certiorari in this ease shows on its face that the petitioner was guilty of contempt of court; and, therefore, that it should not have been sanctioned by the judge of the superior court. We further hold that, although the judge inadvertently sanctioned the petition, he rectified that error by thereafter dismissing the petition and reaching the same result that would have followed the refusal to sanction it. It is well-settled law that a correct judgment will be affirmed, although the judge may have based it on the wrong grounds or given the wrong reasons for it.
None of the rulings excepted to were in violation of any provision of the constitution of the United States or of the constitution of this State. See, in this connection, White v. George, 195 Ga. 465 (24 S. E. 2d, 787), where this identical contempt of court was involved.
The foregoing rulings are controlling in the ease, and the assignments of error not dealt with show no cause for a reversal of the judgment.
The dismissal of the certiorari was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.