Barlow v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barlow v. State

156 S.E. 641, 42 Ga. App. 437, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 811

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1931

Docket21022

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 641 (Barlow v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barlow v. State, 156 S.E. 641, 42 Ga. App. 437, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 811 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “An essential element of the offense of violating section 715 of the Penal Code (known as the ‘labor-contract act’), and one which the State must prove, is that the accused failed to perform the services contracted for, or failed to return the money advanced, ‘without good and sufficient cause.’” Jones v. State, 16 Ga. App. 216 (84 S. E. 988), and cit. In the present case this essential proof was not furnished by the testimony of the hirer, that “I don’t know why he [the accused] did not come and work it out as he contracted to do; I know of no reason why he did not come to work out his contract as he agreed.” Miller v. State, 34 Ga. App. 140 (2) (128 S. E. 588), and cit. Nor was this proof supplied (as suggested in the brief of counsel for the State) by the defendant’s statement to the jury.

2. Under the foregoing rulings, the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “An essential element of the offense of violating section 715 of the Penal Code (known as the ‘labor-contract act’), and one which the State must prove, is that the accused failed to perform the services contracted for, or failed to return the money advanced, ‘without good and sufficient cause.’” Jones v. State, 16 Ga. App. 216 (84 S. E. 988), and cit. In the present case this essential proof was not furnished by the testimony of the hirer, that “I don’t know why he [the accused] did not come and work it out as he contracted to do; I know of no reason why he did not come to work out his contract as he agreed.” Miller v. State, 34 Ga. App. 140 (2) (128 S. E. 588), and cit. Nor was this proof supplied (as suggested in the brief of counsel for the State) by the defendant’s statement to the jury.

2. Under the foregoing rulings, the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 641, 42 Ga. App. 437, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack