Court Opinion

ID: 9849168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:35:39.150801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:04.715414
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Hall, Judge.
Respecting Division 3 of the opinion, the movant argues that the question whether the Commissioners were disqualified from giving him a fair hearing, because earlier they had heard the witnesses give sworn testimony, is not a constitutional issue, but a question of the application of con*95stitutional principles to the facts. No matter by what name the movant calls the above question, he was bound to raise it at the first opportunity—at the hearing before the Commissioners —in order to have it reviewed by the superior court and by this court. Meeks v. Guckenheimer & Son, 102 Ga. 710, 713 (29 SE 486); Berry v. State, 117 Ga. 15 (43 SE 438); Thompson v. Allen, 195 Ga. 733 (25 SE2d 423); McDonald v. Town of Ludowici, 17 Ga. App. 523, 524 (87 SE 807); Dodys v. State, 73 Ga. App. 311 (36 SE2d 164).
The record at the hearing reveals considerable questioning and comment on the earlier testifying of the witnesses at the county jail. But at no time did movant make a motion that the Commissioners be disqualified to conduct the hearing or to render a judgment therein. He raised the issue for the first time in the petition for certiorari.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.