LONG et al. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.
19945
Supreme Court of Georgia
February 7, 1958
213 Ga. 809
Candler, Justice.
Argued January 14, 1958
- Over the objection made there is no merit in the contention that the court erred in allowing the film in evidence and afterwards viewing a projection of it. When it was offered in evidence, and the court was requested to view its projection, counsel for the defendants, while making his objection thereto, further stated to the court that the defendants would have no objection to its introduction if it accurately portrayed the acts complained of; but it was his contention, that the evidence showed that it was an inaccurate portrayal of the scene, as
it depicted the distances between the persons photographed and the area of their operation. Respecting its accuracy, Earl Kennedy, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he operated the camera which produced it; that he personally saw the events which are shown by a projection of it; and that it correctly portrays what he saw take place at the time the events occurred, nothing more or less. - A finding by the court that the defendants had each wilfully and intentionally violated the terms of the restraining order was fully authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence. This being true, there is no merit in the contention that a conviction of the defendants for contempt of the court was not supported by the evidence. See Warner v. Martin, 124 Ga. 387, 392 (52 S. E. 446, 4 Ann. Cas. 180); Patten v. Miller, 190 Ga. 152 (5) (8 S. E. 2d 786); Corley v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 201 Ga. 333 (4) (39 S. E. 2d 861), and the cases there cited.
- Since the sentences imposed in the instant case are within the limits of punishment prescribed by the statute for contempt of court, and since the trial judge is vested with a discretion as to the amount of punishment which should be imposed within such limits, this court is not authorized to control his discretion with respect thereto.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., who dissents.
Adair & Goldthwaite, J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr., for plaintiffs in error.
Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, contra.
Wyatt, Presiding Justice, dissenting. I dissent from the ruling in Division 1 for the reason that I do not think film of a moving picture is ever admissible.
