Case Name: FREEMAN v. CITY OF VALDOSTA
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1969-01-21
Citations: 119 Ga. App. 345
Docket Number: 44135
Parties: FREEMAN v. CITY OF VALDOSTA.
Judges: Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 345–349

Head Matter:
44135.
FREEMAN v. CITY OF VALDOSTA.

Opinion:
Pannell, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Valdosta regulating the operation of a business on Sunday or the Sabbath. In his application for certiorari he made certain constitutional attacks upon the ordinance. The judge of the superior court overruled the certiorari and the defendant appeals to this court. Held:
1. While, in the trial before the recorder, a reference was made to "a State statute" and a statement made that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it had been pre-empted by the State statute, nowhere does the record show that the statute was identified or the constitutional provision identified which it was contended in the certiorari the ordinance violated. Under these circumstances, the judge of the superior court properly overruled the certiorari on these grounds. See Sayer v. Brown, 119 Ga. 539 (3, 5) (46 SE 649); Coleman v. City of Griffin, 55 Ga. App. 123, 129 (189 SE 427); Curtis v. Town of Helen, 171 Ga. 256 (2c) (155 SE 202).
Argued January 6, 1969 —
Decided January 21, 1969—
Rehearing denied January 31 and March 11, 1969—
Walker & Yancey, Reuben H. Yancey, for appellant.
Henry T. Brice, for appellee.
2. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to determine whether the ordinance is invalid upon application of City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618 (19 SE2d 508), or is valid under the ruling in Karwisch v. Mayor &c. of Atlanta, 44 Ga. 204. See also McAuliffe v. Vaughan, 135 Ga. 852 (70 SE 322, 33 LRA (NS) 255, AC 1912A 290); Arnheiter v. State, 115 Ga. 572 (41 SE 989, 58 LRA 392); Reed v. State, 119 Ga. 562 (46 SE 837); Beard v. City of Atlanta,'91 Ga. App. 584 (86 SE2d 672); Giles v. Gibson, 208 Ga. 850 (69 SE2d 774).
3. There being no other grounds insisted upon in the brief of the appellant, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.