Court Opinion

ID: 9541062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:20.610105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:30.359442
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
MacIntyre, P. J.
The defendant contends in his motion for rehearing that the contents of no ordinance alleged to have been violated was shown; that there was no evidence of the alleged violation of any ordinance of the City of Atlanta; that it was not within the territorial limits of such city that an ordinance was violated; and that it was not shown that the police officers had a warrant for the arrest of the defendant, nor was the violation of any ordinance in their presence shown.
The brief of evidence discloses that “the solicitor tendered in evidence a certified copy of section 88-703, Code of the City of Atlanta, which was admitted without objection.” (Emphasis added.) This section reads: “Restrictions As To Speed': Any person driving a vehicle or street car shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than is reasonable and proper. . . However in no case shall the speed of a vehicle exceed 25 miles per hour. . .”
H. C. Hammond, the victim of the alleged assault, who was a policeman of the City of Atlanta, testified in part: “On the 7th of April, 1949, I was on duty as City Policeman. Officer Moore was my partner at that time. Our patrol beat was in the Southwest section of Atlanta, which covers from Lee Street all the way back to Ashby Street. I patrol [led?] on Lee Street that morning, I had occasion to arrest the defendant, Hemy J. Johnson, the defendant in this case on the morning of April 7, 1949. Officer Moore and myself were traveling south, with 'Atlanta City Police’ written on the car, and two cars [one of which was the defendant’s]] passed us, going at a high rate of speed. I was driving the City Police car, and I increased my speed and *844followed them for approximately a mile out Lee Street with neither car slowing down and according to the City Police car’s speedometer they were doing between 40 and 50 miles per hour.”
E. F. Moore testified in part: “I am a policeman for the City qf Atlanta and was such on the 7th of April, 1949. Mr. Hammond was my partner at that time, and we were on duty the early morning hours of that date. We stopped someone on Lee Street for. investigation. We were driving out Lee Street and there was a car come out Lee Street real fast, was speeding; and we,took out after it, chasing it; and there was a black Ford ’36 dropped in between us and the car we were chasing, and ran a red light right in front of us. We caught them at Fort McPherson -and throwed the spotlight on this 1936 Ford [the defendant’s car].”
.. Thus we think the testimony showed that on the morning of April 7 at about 12 or 1 a. m. these policemen, Hammond and Moore, were patrolling their beat in the southwest section of Atlanta which covered Lee Street all the way back to Ashby Street; that these officers were patrolling (necessarily or inferqntially) in the City of Atlanta on Lee Street, and while so doing, defendant passed them in his car going at a high rate of speed; that they followed the defendant’s car and the police car's speedometer showed that the defendant’s car was going at a speed of between 40 and 50 miles per hour. Thus the jury was authorized to find that the defendant violated an ordinance of. the City of Atlanta restricting the speed of vehicles to 25 miles per hour by running 40 to 50 miles, and further that the defendant’s car ran through a red light and moreover, the witness Stewart testified that the defendant’s car was running without-lights when the officers were chasing him, and running without- lights at night is a violation of the State statute whether it is done within or without the City of Atlanta; and the trial court, as well as this court could take judicial notice of this statute. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 580 (27 S. E. 2d, 91).
These and all other matters in the motion having been considered, the motion for rehearing is denied.

Rehearing denied.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.