Beeman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Beeman v. State

88 S.E. 408, 17 Ga. App. 752, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 905

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 24, 1916

Docket7130

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 408 (Beeman 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

Beeman v. State, 88 S.E. 408, 17 Ga. App. 752, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 905 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

“In a prosecution for a violation of the ‘labor-contract act’ (Penal Code, § 715), the burden rests upon the State to show that there was no sufficient reason for the breach of the contract on the part of the defendant, or, in default thereof, that there was no good and sufficient reason why the money advanced on the strength of the contract [753]*753was not returned. ‘Without this proof the State’s case is incomplete, because the prosecution has not created the evidentiary presumption necessary to rebut the presumption of innocence. Presumably the accused has good and sufficient cause.’ Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (78 S. E. 853). See also Lewis v. State, [15 Ga. App.] 405 (83 S. E. 439).” Jones v. State, 15 Ga. App. 642 (84 S. E. 88). The State failed to submit any evidence whatever to prove this essential element of the offense, and the trial court therefore erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Decided March 24, 1916.

Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Americus — Judge Harper. October 30, 1915.

J. B. Hudson, for plaintiff in error. Zach. Childers, solicitor, contra.

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

Wade, J.

“In a prosecution for a violation of the ‘labor-contract act’ (Penal Code, § 715), the burden rests upon the State to show that there was no sufficient reason for the breach of the contract on the part of the defendant, or, in default thereof, that there was no good and sufficient reason why the money advanced on the strength of the contract [753]*753was not returned. ‘Without this proof the State’s case is incomplete, because the prosecution has not created the evidentiary presumption necessary to rebut the presumption of innocence. Presumably the accused has good and sufficient cause.’ Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (78 S. E. 853). See also Lewis v. State, [15 Ga. App.] 405 (83 S. E. 439).” Jones v. State, 15 Ga. App. 642 (84 S. E. 88). The State failed to submit any evidence whatever to prove this essential element of the offense, and the trial court therefore erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Decided March 24, 1916.

Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Americus — Judge Harper. October 30, 1915.

J. B. Hudson, for plaintiff in error. Zach. Childers, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 408, 17 Ga. App. 752, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeman-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack