Hawks v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hawks v. State

60 S.E. 207, 3 Ga. App. 447, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 176

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1908

Docket870; 871

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 S.E. 207 (Hawks 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

Hawks v. State, 60 S.E. 207, 3 Ga. App. 447, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 176 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. On the trial of one accused of vagrancy, it is error to instruct the jury that “a person may become a vagrant in a very short while, — in fact, in a few days, — provided he is able to work and does not work, and has no property to support himself, and wanders about in idleness; for the law does not contemplate that under such circumstances a person may work one or two days in a week and then loaf around the remainder of the week.” This instruction is erroneous: (a) Because the length of time in which a person may become a vagrant is immaterial, the question before the jury not being how long it might take one to become a vagrant, but whether in fact the defendant has become and is a vagrant. (6) Because the fact that one may work one or two days in a week and then remain idle the remainder of the week would not constitute one a vagrant, although he might be able to work and have no property to support himself, provided his earnings for the proportion of time he might labor were in fact sufficient to support him and furnish him an honest livelihood. Lewis v. State, 3 Ga. App. 322 (59 S. E. 933).

.2. The evidence in behalf of the State, being wholly negative in its character, is, in view of the testimony in behalf of the defendant, insufficient to authorize a conviction. Jacobs v. State, 1 Ga. App. 519 (57 S. E. 1063). That a defendant who is required to attend a city court where a charge is pending against him is not seen at other labor during that time is not material to the charge of vagrancy.

Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. On the trial of one accused of vagrancy, it is error to instruct the jury that “a person may become a vagrant in a very short while, — in fact, in a few days, — provided he is able to work and does not work, and has no property to support himself, and wanders about in idleness; for the law does not contemplate that under such circumstances a person may work one or two days in a week and then loaf around the remainder of the week.” This instruction is erroneous: (a) Because the length of time in which a person may become a vagrant is immaterial, the question before the jury not being how long it might take one to become a vagrant, but whether in fact the defendant has become and is a vagrant. (6) Because the fact that one may work one or two days in a week and then remain idle the remainder of the week would not constitute one a vagrant, although he might be able to work and have no property to support himself, provided his earnings for the proportion of time he might labor were in fact sufficient to support him and furnish him an honest livelihood. Lewis v. State, 3 Ga. App. 322 (59 S. E. 933).

.2. The evidence in behalf of the State, being wholly negative in its character, is, in view of the testimony in behalf of the defendant, insufficient to authorize a conviction. Jacobs v. State, 1 Ga. App. 519 (57 S. E. 1063). That a defendant who is required to attend a city court where a charge is pending against him is not seen at other labor during that time is not material to the charge of vagrancy.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 207, 3 Ga. App. 447, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawks-v-state-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack