Chapple v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Chapple v. State

55 S.E. 471, 126 Ga. 638, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 497

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 S.E. 471 (Chapple 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

Chapple v. State, 55 S.E. 471, 126 Ga. 638, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 497 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

An accusation alleged that the defendant did commit the.offence of cheating and swindling, for that on the 24th day of October, 1905, he “did, after having contracted with Waller Bros., a firm composed [of] B" Ii. Waller and G. C. Waller, to perform for them certain services as a wage hand, at and for the sum of $9.00 per month, and to work for said Waller Bros, under said contract a sufficient length of time to pay in full the sum of $110.00 procured of them under said contract, said $110.00 having been procured with intent not to perform said contract, to the loss and damage of the hirer in the sum of $54.00, said labor not having been performed or said money returned to said hirers, and no cause having been given for non-performance of said contract.” The evidence of one of the hirers, in regard to the contract; was as follows: “The firm of Waller Brothers did make a contract with Alex. Chappie during the year 1905. The contract was that we paid a fine here in court for his wife (the fine was seventy-five dollars), and he came to us and told us he would pay us one hundred and ten dollars and work it out if we would pay .the fine and not let her go to the chain-gang. We took the contract for one liun-dred and ten dollars, and he was to commence that day — the next [639]*639•day (that was on the 24th'of October, I believe), and work for nine •dollars a month and we feed him until he paid the .one hundred and ten dollars, and when he had to have clothes and such things as that, I paid for them too. He commenced the 25th day of October and worked until the 26th day of June. At the end of that time he hacjj taken up about ten or twelve dollars worth, and he lost twenty-eight days time, at nine dollars a month. He took up $10 of $12; not less than $10, not more than $12.” A comparison of these statements will show that there was a variance between the ■contract alleged and that proved, and a verdict of guilty was not .supported by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

An accusation alleged that the defendant did commit the.offence of cheating and swindling, for that on the 24th day of October, 1905, he “did, after having contracted with Waller Bros., a firm composed [of] B" Ii. Waller and G. C. Waller, to perform for them certain services as a wage hand, at and for the sum of $9.00 per month, and to work for said Waller Bros, under said contract a sufficient length of time to pay in full the sum of $110.00 procured of them under said contract, said $110.00 having been procured with intent not to perform said contract, to the loss and damage of the hirer in the sum of $54.00, said labor not having been performed or said money returned to said hirers, and no cause having been given for non-performance of said contract.” The evidence of one of the hirers, in regard to the contract; was as follows: “The firm of Waller Brothers did make a contract with Alex. Chappie during the year 1905. The contract was that we paid a fine here in court for his wife (the fine was seventy-five dollars), and he came to us and told us he would pay us one hundred and ten dollars and work it out if we would pay .the fine and not let her go to the chain-gang. We took the contract for one liun-dred and ten dollars, and he was to commence that day — the next [639]*639•day (that was on the 24th'of October, I believe), and work for nine •dollars a month and we feed him until he paid the .one hundred and ten dollars, and when he had to have clothes and such things as that, I paid for them too. He commenced the 25th day of October and worked until the 26th day of June. At the end of that time he hacjj taken up about ten or twelve dollars worth, and he lost twenty-eight days time, at nine dollars a month. He took up $10 of $12; not less than $10, not more than $12.” A comparison of these statements will show that there was a variance between the ■contract alleged and that proved, and a verdict of guilty was not .supported by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E. 471, 126 Ga. 638, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapple-v-state-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack