Anthony v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Anthony v. State

55 S.E. 479, 126 Ga. 632, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 492

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 S.E. 479 (Anthony v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony v. State, 55 S.E. 479, 126 Ga. 632, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 492 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.

1. As was expressly ruled in Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19, “A minor who has arrived at the age of criminal responsibility may be convicted, under the act of 1903, of the fraudulent practices made penal by that act, although a contract of service made by him may not be civilly enforceable.”

2. While proof that the minor left the service of his employer in obedience to parental authority will suffice to rebut all presumption of fraudulent intent (Howard v. State, ante, 538), yet the bare fact that the minor told his employer that he had yielded to the command of a stranger to go to work for him can afford the minor no excuse, in the absence of a satisfactory showing that he did so under fear or duress, rather than voluntarily and with the purpose of defrauding his employer in accordance with a previously formed intent.

3. The evidence in the present case was such as to authorize the conviction of the accused, even upon the assumption that he was a minor; which is not made to appear in the record otherwise than inferentially

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Evans, J.

1. As was expressly ruled in Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19, “A minor who has arrived at the age of criminal responsibility may be convicted, under the act of 1903, of the fraudulent practices made penal by that act, although a contract of service made by him may not be civilly enforceable.”

2. While proof that the minor left the service of his employer in obedience to parental authority will suffice to rebut all presumption of fraudulent intent (Howard v. State, ante, 538), yet the bare fact that the minor told his employer that he had yielded to the command of a stranger to go to work for him can afford the minor no excuse, in the absence of a satisfactory showing that he did so under fear or duress, rather than voluntarily and with the purpose of defrauding his employer in accordance with a previously formed intent.

3. The evidence in the present case was such as to authorize the conviction of the accused, even upon the assumption that he was a minor; which is not made to appear in the record otherwise than inferentially

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E. 479, 126 Ga. 632, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-state-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack