Ruben v. City of Rome., 102 Ga. App. 704, 117 S.E.2d 543 (1960)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment reversed. Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Jordan, JJ., concur.
Summary
Judgment reversed. Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Jordan, JJ., concur.
Text
Horace T. Clary, Chastine Parker, Solicitor-General, contra.Hamilton & Anderson, George Anderson, Gary Hamilton, for plaintiff in error.
The petition for certiorari sets forth numerous grounds of objection made to the admission of evidence at the hearing before the city commissioners, and, also, the defendant, by his petition, contends that the judgment is contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, against the weight of the evidence, and without evidence to support it.
Testimony was adduced before the city commissioners that two detectives appeared at the defendant's place of business on January 8, 1960, with a young girl who admitted she had stolen a typewriter identified as being in the possession of the defendant. The defendant refused to surrender the property without a possessory warrant or some legal proceeding. Between January 8 and January 15, the detectives demanded a list of items taken in pawn or purchased by the defendant, as required by the municipal ordinance. Between the above dates the wife of the defendant took to the police station several cards containing information which she claimed to be in compliance with the ordinance.
While one of the detectives was testifying, a question was put to him asking about his knowledge of whether a list had been turned in to the police department showing a typewriter had been purchased by the defendant. An objection was interposed that such evidence would be a conclusion of the witness, and further, that the ordinance does not require any such action on the part of the defendant. The answer of the witness that such a list had not been turned in was admitted in evidence.
There was insufficient evidence to authorize the conviction. A careful perusal of the record shows that the testimony of the detective was a mere conclusion not shown to be based upon facts within his own knowledge--hence, no foundation was laid upon which to make the conclusion admissible. Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman,
As stated in Howell v. Howell,
Though the evidence is sufficient to create a suspicion of guilt, a suspicion of guilt does not authorize & conviction of crime. Therefore, the superior court erred in overruling the petition for certiorari.
Sponsored links
