Durham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Durham v. State

88 S.E. 594, 17 Ga. App. 810, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 951

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1916

Docket7237

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 594 (Durham 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

Durham v. State, 88 S.E. 594, 17 Ga. App. 810, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 951 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the “labor-contract act” (Acts 1903, p. '90, Penal Code, §§ 715, 716). It not having been proved that he had no good and sufficient cause for his failure to perform the contract, the conviction was unauthorized. Johnson v. State, 125 Ga. 243 (3), 246 (54 S. E. 184); Mobley v. State, 4 Ga. App. 78 (60 S. E. 803);Hankinson v. State, 6 Ga. App. 793 (65 S. E. 837); Brown v. State, 8 Ga. App. 211 (2), 212 (68 S. E. 865); Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (2), 13 (78 S. E. 853); Jones v. State, 16 Ga. App. 216 (84 S. E. 88). This essential proof was not furnished by the hirer’s'testimony that he did not give the defendant any cause to quit. The testimony on this point amounted to no more than an opinion or conclusion, without proof of facts to support it. Moreover, proof that the hirer did not give the defendant cause to quit would not of itself show that there was no good and sufficient cause. See Smiley v. State, 14 Ga. App. 15 (80 S. E. 31); Mobley v. State, 13 Ga. App. 730 (79 S. E. 907).

Judgment reversed.

Russell, G. J., absent.

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

Broyles, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the “labor-contract act” (Acts 1903, p. '90, Penal Code, §§ 715, 716). It not having been proved that he had no good and sufficient cause for his failure to perform the contract, the conviction was unauthorized. Johnson v. State, 125 Ga. 243 (3), 246 (54 S. E. 184); Mobley v. State, 4 Ga. App. 78 (60 S. E. 803);Hankinson v. State, 6 Ga. App. 793 (65 S. E. 837); Brown v. State, 8 Ga. App. 211 (2), 212 (68 S. E. 865); Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (2), 13 (78 S. E. 853); Jones v. State, 16 Ga. App. 216 (84 S. E. 88). This essential proof was not furnished by the hirer’s'testimony that he did not give the defendant any cause to quit. The testimony on this point amounted to no more than an opinion or conclusion, without proof of facts to support it. Moreover, proof that the hirer did not give the defendant cause to quit would not of itself show that there was no good and sufficient cause. See Smiley v. State, 14 Ga. App. 15 (80 S. E. 31); Mobley v. State, 13 Ga. App. 730 (79 S. E. 907).

Judgment reversed.

Russell, G. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 594, 17 Ga. App. 810, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack