
    12398.
    GARRETT v. CITY OF ATLANTA.
    “ Where one is on trial in the recorder’s court of a municipality for violation of an ordinance of the city, it is essential that the venue should be proved by direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence that the crime was committed within the limits of the municipality. And where it is not so proved, and the writ of certiorari is sued out, and the petition therefor contains the distinct allegation, as provided in the act approved August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 149), relating to practice in courts of review, that there was a failure to prove the venue, and there is a proper assignment of error thereon, it is error for the judge of the superior court to overrule the certiorari, though it does not appear that the distinct question as to the venue was raised in the recorder’s court.” Garrett v. City of Atlanta, 152 Ga. 675 (110 S. E. 886).
    Decided April 11, 1922.
    Certiorari; from Eulton superior court — Judge Bell. March 24, 1921.
    
      James C. Davis, for plaintiff.
    
      J. L. Mayson, J. M. Wood, for defendant.
   Luke, J.

The above ruling was made in answer to a question certified by this court to the Supreme Court. The question showed that the accused was tried and convicted in the recorder’s court of the City of Atlanta for violation of a certain ordinance of the city; that on the trial undisputed evidence showed that the alleged offense was committed on West Peachtree street at the intersection of Simpson street.” This was the only evidence as to where the alleged offense was. committed. The accused made no point, until after he had been adjudged guilty by the recorder, that the venue had not been proved; and he raised the question specifically for the first time in his petition for certiorari. The certiorari was sanctioned, but on the hearing thereof it was overruled by the judge of the superior court.

The answer of the Supreme Court being that the venue of the alleged offense was not proved, the judgment of the judge of the superior court, overruling the certiorari, must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  