Curry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Curry v. State

67 S.E. 698, 7 Ga. App. 582, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 400

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1910

Docket2397

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 698 (Curry 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

Curry v. State, 67 S.E. 698, 7 Ga. App. 582, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 400 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, O.' J.

In December, 1905, the prosecutor was induced .to advance to-the defendant $55, on the latter’s promise that he would work for the prosecutor as a laborer from August 1, 1906, at the rate of $10 per month, and would continue so to work until his services had fully re[583]*583paid the sum advanced. In pursuance of this promise the defendant began work for the prosecutor on August 1, 1906, and continued to work under his agreement until October 27, 1906, when, without sufficient cause, he quit work and went away; and he neglected to pay the balance of the money which had been advanced to him by the prosecutor. Held: Under the principle announced in Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 522 (57 S. E. 1022), these facts did not show a violation of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), which makes it a misdemeanor for any person to procure money or anything of value on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud. Judgment reversed.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Warren superior court— Judge Meadow. December 25, 1909.

Submitted March 8, Decided April 6, 1910. E. T. Bhurley, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Brown, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Hill, O.' J.

In December, 1905, the prosecutor was induced .to advance to-the defendant $55, on the latter’s promise that he would work for the prosecutor as a laborer from August 1, 1906, at the rate of $10 per month, and would continue so to work until his services had fully re[583]*583paid the sum advanced. In pursuance of this promise the defendant began work for the prosecutor on August 1, 1906, and continued to work under his agreement until October 27, 1906, when, without sufficient cause, he quit work and went away; and he neglected to pay the balance of the money which had been advanced to him by the prosecutor. Held: Under the principle announced in Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 522 (57 S. E. 1022), these facts did not show a violation of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), which makes it a misdemeanor for any person to procure money or anything of value on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud. Judgment reversed.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Warren superior court— Judge Meadow. December 25, 1909.

Submitted March 8, Decided April 6, 1910. E. T. Bhurley, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Brown, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 698, 7 Ga. App. 582, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-state-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack