Howard v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Howard v. State

55 S.E. 239, 126 Ga. 538, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 438

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 17, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 S.E. 239 (Howard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howard v. State, 55 S.E. 239, 126 Ga. 538, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 438 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

When in the trial of one charged with the violation of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), providing for the punishment of those who with fraudulent intent procure advances on the faith of contracts of labor, it appears from uncontradieted evidence that the accused was a minor and that the failure on his part to perform the services required under the contract was due to the fact that his father had directed him to leave the service and return home in order that he might perform labor under a contract which the father had made, the presumption of fraudulent intent, arising from the fact that money was procured on the faith of the. contract and the service not rendered or the money returned, is rebutted, and a conviction of the accused is contrary to law.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Accusation of cheating, etc. Before Judge Little. City court of Sparta. June 4, 1906.

Williford & MiddlebrooTes, for plaintiff in error. R. W. Moore, solicitor, and R. H. Lewis, contra.

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

Beck, J.

When in the trial of one charged with the violation of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), providing for the punishment of those who with fraudulent intent procure advances on the faith of contracts of labor, it appears from uncontradieted evidence that the accused was a minor and that the failure on his part to perform the services required under the contract was due to the fact that his father had directed him to leave the service and return home in order that he might perform labor under a contract which the father had made, the presumption of fraudulent intent, arising from the fact that money was procured on the faith of the. contract and the service not rendered or the money returned, is rebutted, and a conviction of the accused is contrary to law.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Accusation of cheating, etc. Before Judge Little. City court of Sparta. June 4, 1906.

Williford & MiddlebrooTes, for plaintiff in error. R. W. Moore, solicitor, and R. H. Lewis, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E. 239, 126 Ga. 538, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack