Broughton v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Broughton v. State

39 S.E. 866, 114 Ga. 34, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 552

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 6, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 39 S.E. 866 (Broughton 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

Broughton v. State, 39 S.E. 866, 114 Ga. 34, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 552 (Ga. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Little, J.

1. An essential element of the offense defined in section 122 of the Penal Code is enticing, persuading, or decoying the servant of another to leave his employer during his term of service, and proof of such facts as establish that the accused did one of these things is essential to sustain a conviction of the offense therein defined. Hence, a conviction under this section can not lawfully stand where the evidence in this regard shows no more than that the servant left the place of his employment in company with the accused.

2. On the trial of one indicted under the section referred to, a declaration made by the accused to the effect that he himself would not live with the prosecutor is irrelevant.

3. Irrespective of the other questions raised or sought to be raised in the present case, the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction, under the principle ruled in the .first preceding headnote, and a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., who is disqualified.

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

Little, J.

1. An essential element of the offense defined in section 122 of the Penal Code is enticing, persuading, or decoying the servant of another to leave his employer during his term of service, and proof of such facts as establish that the accused did one of these things is essential to sustain a conviction of the offense therein defined. Hence, a conviction under this section can not lawfully stand where the evidence in this regard shows no more than that the servant left the place of his employment in company with the accused.

2. On the trial of one indicted under the section referred to, a declaration made by the accused to the effect that he himself would not live with the prosecutor is irrelevant.

3. Irrespective of the other questions raised or sought to be raised in the present case, the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction, under the principle ruled in the .first preceding headnote, and a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., who is disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.E. 866, 114 Ga. 34, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broughton-v-state-ga-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack