Freeman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Freeman v. State

116 S.E. 920, 30 Ga. App. 133, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 312

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1923

Docket14302

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 920 (Freeman 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

Freeman v. State, 116 S.E. 920, 30 Ga. App. 133, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of selling and disposing of a' part of the crop grown by him without the consent of the landlord, during the time of the relation of landlord and cropper, before the crops had been divided and payment in full for all advances had been made. Penal Code (1910), § 729. There was evidence to authorize the verdict. The fact that the landlord may not have had fee-simple title to the premises upon which the crop was raised would not serve to change the relationship of landlord and cropper. The evidence was positive that the defendant contracted with the landlord and occupied the premises as the cropper of the landlord. The, State had to go no further in its proof for the purpose of establishing the relationship of landlord and cropper. The trial judge having approved, the verdict, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of selling and disposing of a' part of the crop grown by him without the consent of the landlord, during the time of the relation of landlord and cropper, before the crops had been divided and payment in full for all advances had been made. Penal Code (1910), § 729. There was evidence to authorize the verdict. The fact that the landlord may not have had fee-simple title to the premises upon which the crop was raised would not serve to change the relationship of landlord and cropper. The evidence was positive that the defendant contracted with the landlord and occupied the premises as the cropper of the landlord. The, State had to go no further in its proof for the purpose of establishing the relationship of landlord and cropper. The trial judge having approved, the verdict, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 920, 30 Ga. App. 133, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-state-gactapp-1923.