Opinion
17130.
JULY 11, 1950.
Illegal fishing Before Judge Heery. Savannah City Court. November 4, 1949.
Aaron Kravitch, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan Jr., Solicitor-General, Sylvan A. Garfunkel, and Herman W. Coolidge, contra.
1. The constitutionality of Code § 45-512 was determined adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error by the decision of this court in Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 837 ( 59 S.E.2d 384), and the trial court did not err in overruling his demurrer to the indictment charging him with having operated a power-drawn net in violation of that Code section.
2. The questions raised by the assignments of error on an excerpt from the charge of the court, as contained in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, which assignments were predicated on the alleged invalidity of the statute above referred to, are determined adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error by the ruling made above.
3. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not being argued or insisted on, are treated as abandoned.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
No. 17130. JULY 11, 1950.
C. Clarke Jr. was charged by an accusation from the City Court of Savannah with a violation of Code § 45-512, which section made unlawful "the use of all nets except hand nets in the inside salt water rivers, creeks, and estuaries." He demurred to the accusation on two grounds. Ground 1 asserted that the Code section just referred to had been repealed by a regulation of the State Game and Fish Commission. Ground 2 attacked this Code section as being violative of the due-process clause of the Federal Constitution, and of paragraphs 2, 3, and 25 of article 1, section 1 of the Constitution of Georgia. This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant excepted pendente lite. He was convicted and sentenced as for a misdemeanor. He moved for a new trial on the general grounds and on two special grounds, added by amendment, assigning error on a quoted excerpt from the court's charge. The motion as amended was overruled, and he excepted, assigning error on his exceptions pendente lite and on the overruling of his motion for a new trial.
In part 2 of his brief, counsel for the defendant states: "If the statute is valid, then of course the charge of the court to which exception is taken is also valid. If the section of the law is invalid, then of course the charge of the court based upon said section would likewise be invalid."