Cowin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cowin v. State

133 S.E. 880, 35 Ga. App. 499, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 945

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket17321

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 880 (Cowin 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

Cowin v. State, 133 S.E. 880, 35 Ga. App. 499, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 945 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

“Any person who shall obtain food, lodging or other accommodation at any hotel, inn, boarding-house or eating-house in the State of Georgia, except when credit is given therefor by express agreement, with intent to defraud the owner or- keeper of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars or imprisoned for a period of time not exceeding three months, either or both in the discretion of the court.” Ga. Laws, 1910, p. 137. The evidence in this case did not authorize the jury to find that the defendant, with intent to defraud, obtained food and lodging from the boarding-house named in the accusation. Eor the reason that the evi[500]*500dence did not authorize the conviction of the defendant, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 15, 1926. Wm. Story, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Gary, solicitor, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

“Any person who shall obtain food, lodging or other accommodation at any hotel, inn, boarding-house or eating-house in the State of Georgia, except when credit is given therefor by express agreement, with intent to defraud the owner or- keeper of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars or imprisoned for a period of time not exceeding three months, either or both in the discretion of the court.” Ga. Laws, 1910, p. 137. The evidence in this case did not authorize the jury to find that the defendant, with intent to defraud, obtained food and lodging from the boarding-house named in the accusation. Eor the reason that the evi[500]*500dence did not authorize the conviction of the defendant, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 15, 1926. Wm. Story, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Gary, solicitor, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 880, 35 Ga. App. 499, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowin-v-state-gactapp-1926.