*1 DeWeill, Harvey objection.” jury (2b) App. 394 upon predicated error are remaining assignments of
2. The with jury in its instructions ground that the trial court pain damages for future ascertaining reference to the issue of to both instructions applied these suffering, erroneously and defendant only when plaintiff and defendant court’s conclusion of the damages. At seeking such “Now, given: instruction was charge following jury plaintiff’s counsel called gentlemen and of the jury, ladies in his plaintiff, petition the court’s attention the fact suffering but pain future and damages for not seek future past and suffering in damages pain seeks and only plaintiff is con- therefore, so far as the date, down to this and instructions.” cerned, will be limited those you the court assignments merit since error are without These plaintiff jury specifically instructed only damages pain suffering for future seeking past down to suffering in the damages pain seeking jury would limited the trial and that date of was concerned. insofar those instructions elimi- specifically opinion, clearly instruction our of future jury’s any element from the consideration nated suffering plaintiff was concerned. pain as far as Deen, J., C. concur. Judgment Felton, J., affirmed. 29, 1965. Decided November Submitted November Owen, for Kimzey, B. Winston Kimzey Kimzey, & Herbert appellant. Struble, appellee. Robert B. Ramsey Struble,
McClure, et al. INGLE, Next Friend RUBENSTEIN *2 Argued July Decided September 21, 1965 Rehearing denied November 16 30, November error. Kirbo, Kirbo, Bruce Miller W. Bubenstein, Jay contra. M. Max Sawilowsky, motion to ground Judge. second Frankum, provisions merit obviously dismiss is delay affirmatively appear It does not plaintiff in act or of counsel was caused omission ground without Smith v. error, and, therefore, this merit. (1) Barnett, 107 Ga. presents complex question ground
The first somewhat more study, apparent or hiatus which, upon discloses an conflict the Juvenile law. The case was tried in Court of judgment appealed order from was ren- and the Judges Superior sitting dered by one of pursuant as that court. That court established (Ga. 1951, p. Act seq.; Juvenile Court L. et Code Ann. 24-24), provisions Ch. amended. Under the an amenda- having tory applicable population to counties in excess of *3 (Ga. p. more L. 140,000 402), than which 130,000, 1961, applicable Judges is Richmond one of the the in the Judge Court Superior Richmond as Juvenile sits an Act County. By 6 of Juvenile Court of Richmond Section (Ga. amending approved pp. 74), 13, 1956, 69, L. February (Code 24-2429) Ann. Section the Juvenile Court 30 of § in a amend- constitutional pursuant authority contained (Code where 2-3709), ment Ann. ratified November § juvenile superior judge, the court the court sits as direct, Appeals be or the appeals may taken to the Court of the from appeals as other “in the manner Supreme Court same in error superior of the defendants The contention court.” ground 1 is that thereof their motion to dismiss under of the with the Clerk exceptions should have been filed County, and transmitted the record Juvenile Court superior the of the than filed with rather by clerk, regard him. coun- by record transmitted court the upon provisions 6-1001, the Ann. sel relies § judge, the certificate of the from days the date “within 15 the clerk of exceptions shall filed the office of the be ours.) (Emphasis tried.” Mov- the case was where court course, contend, of that since case here was tried ants ex- the bill of Juvenile Court of Richmond ceptions Superior in the of the office of Clerk by Court of the record transmitted clerk, bill never been filed as has provided by provisions section. of the aforesaid Code opinion provisions
In our Section Juvenile 30 of by the Court Act as amended 1956 Act are in irreconcilable provisions conflict 6-1001, with insofar as whom, they proper indicate the clerk of court with the bill of appealed should be filed a case from decision superior of the of the sitting juvenile as a court court judge. we think that However, this conflict should resolved in harmony spirit purpose with the legis- law and of the lature evidenced as 1965 Appellate Act, Practice which appellate is purely to avoid dismissals in courts on technical grounds wherever possible. spirit Such of the former repealed by Appellate law also. See Code the 1965 construing applicable Practice Act. So the law legislature have was the concluded that it intent of the that, involving appeals superior cases from decisions of a sitting judge, appeals as re- shall be such garded being superior taken from the not from the juvenile court. This language conclusion authorized (Code of Section Act as 24-2429), amended Ann. § provides appeals that such Appeals Court of Supreme Court shall be taken “in the same manner as- other appeals ours.) from the superior (Emphasis court.” The use of the word “other” in context indicates that the General *4 procedure pursued the to be appeals intended that on Assembly in be the same as if cases such case the had been case superior appeals In superior tried in the court. other the from the provisions court under excep- of § superior be with the clerk of the court, tions must and this is what was done counsel for the in in error this case. regard strengthened
Our in is further conclusion by the express authority fact that no to appoint a clerk of court is granted juvenile the judge anywhere to court in the Juvenile
771 authorize that does *of It is true that Section Court Act. employees force, clerical probation officers, appoint the to the exe- personnel necessary other home, the of detention in that, provides Act, the further purposes cution of the of the where 50,000, less than of having population counties judge, the superior juvenile court of the sits as juvenile be the clerk of the superior of also the court shall clerk may that other there implying in court, perhaps cases thus, it affirma- juvenile not the court. Nevertheless, clerk of us there properly evidence before tively appear any from County em- in Court of Richmond fact a clerk of the Juvenile proceedings of of that and to powered certify records to cannot the and, bill therefore, say transmit writs of was the case filed with not superior conformity with the order embodied certificate to the superior clerk of court transmit the this court. record to The motion to the writ denied. is, dismiss therefore, did not have County The Juvenile Court jurisdiction in this case. Under the the minor involved over his undisputed voluntarily relinquished evidence the father had right parental custody control mother who was in Decatur Ga. addition resident of domiciled an of Ordinary to this fact order of Court of Decatur custody introduced in evidence showed mother in corpus child had been awarded a habeas between the The' proceeding father and mother. effect of place Ida L. mother, this order was Ingle, status guardian person Ingle, E. Code of Gerald Jr. natural appears dispute amended. It 49-102 as thus § Ingle, Jr., minor child of Gerald E. domicile and residence in this in Decatur Rich involved County. 79-404; Bowen, Code Dickerson mond § Domicile Residence, 9 E.G.L. jurisdiction on the Act confers Juvenile years respective county each child any courts of age living county. within or found longer subject language construction, If this fact *5 772
that Gerald E. Jr. to have by shown evidence was Ingle, might been hesitate found within cause us to County Richmond hold Juvenile Court of Richmond did not jurisdiction However, have him. both court and this Supreme jurisdiction expressly have a held in court, being nature, only civil extends to those minors county. Hampton who are Stevenson, residents (78 (1) Ga. 87 v. State, App. SE2d Whitman 96 Ga. (1) (101 621). It follows that the Juvenile Court of jurisdiction did have in case, this pleas jurisdiction overruling erred Ingle Ida L. in her own behalf and in behalf of the minor involved in jurisdiction this and that this lack of proceedings nugatory rendered all had therein.
Judgment reversed. J.,P. Bell, J., Hall, concur. Rehearing.
On Motion rehearing In a well reasoned motion for the de- counsel in error has vigorously fendants com- contend this grievous refusing mitted dismiss the wnt error. to' persuasiveness logic of the motion was such that we impelled were have, to reconsider our decision the matter and therefore, given painstaking argu- and careful attention to the ment movant, but, last, right at have concluded that we were refusing to dismiss the writ error. In con- reaching this further appears. clusion a reason a requirement Under Ann. brought extant at time this case to this it on writ of of the duty to whom the presented see that his certificate was legal signing form before the same. While do not find any provision under decision old 6-808, which directive, clearly contained same defining “legal form,” what the phrase is meant it been has held of the writ of error dismissal on account the form of the certificate will not had for cause other than failure certify of the Bailey as true. &c. Buggy Guthrie, (1) Co. 1 Ga. judge's case the certificate directed of the
superior a out transcript certify to make record Whether court. it transmitted to and cause to be same is a matter in the certificate or not this directive contained presumed it -will be decide, unnecessary form is for us *6 consciously knowingly the trial containing directive. his signature affixed to certificate seem for circumstances, it would that counsel these Under plaintiff filed the certified bill of issued, with the clerk of to whom directive for the writ of error because this court to now dismiss dismissing to, fact, much akin if not in very was done would something or to be done the trial it because of done directed judge. were favored Dismissals such technical not for reasons procedure under the applicable to this case. Code reason, For this additional for outlined well as the reasons original determination adhere our original opinion, we let accordingly, we shall, the writ of not dismiss stand. decision on merits Rehearing denied. FARRAR MEMORIAL 41502. v. GLYNN-BRUNSWICK
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. trial com- a new motion for Judge. ground of a A Frankum, permitted counsel trial court error, in that the plaining of questions certain plaintiff the defendant to ask interposed objection require answer them plaintiff forth set plaintiff, by counsel point reference questions such therein answers to too record, may answers be found out where such v. for decision. Woodward incomplete present question Ridley Ridley, (8) (88 974); SE Fuller, 145 Ga. Daniel, Ga. (8) (102 Daniel rule (5) (73 foregoing Under the App. 325, 328 for a new grounds special the motion first second properly overruled. trial and were are without merit complaining the action ground a new trial 2. A of motion holding con- for the trial court counsel