Golden v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Golden v. State

146 S.E. 336, 39 Ga. App. 151, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 228

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1929

Docket19326

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 336 (Golden 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

Golden v. State, 146 S.E. 336, 39 Ga. App. 151, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 228 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The defendant was accused of a violation of what is known as “the labor-contract act” of 1903, by having procured from his employer ten dollars after having agreed to- perform certain services. To authorize a conviction of a violation of that act (Penal Code of 1910, § 715), the evidence must show the procurement of money, or other thing of value, on a contract to perform services and with the intent to defraud at the time the money [152]*152or other thing of value was procured. The evidence in this case fails to show that there was any intent to defraud when the money was procured, and, therefore, the verdict was unauthorized.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The defendant was accused of a violation of what is known as “the labor-contract act” of 1903, by having procured from his employer ten dollars after having agreed to- perform certain services. To authorize a conviction of a violation of that act (Penal Code of 1910, § 715), the evidence must show the procurement of money, or other thing of value, on a contract to perform services and with the intent to defraud at the time the money [152]*152or other thing of value was procured. The evidence in this case fails to show that there was any intent to defraud when the money was procured, and, therefore, the verdict was unauthorized.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 336, 39 Ga. App. 151, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack