Hunt v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hunt v. State

91 S.E. 879, 19 Ga. App. 448, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 148

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1917

Docket7948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 879 (Hunt 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

Hunt v. State, 91 S.E. 879, 19 Ga. App. 448, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Ltjke, J.

1. Upon the trial of one charged with a violation of section 416 of the Penal Code (1910) it was not error for the court to refuse to charge the jury:’ “If you believe, from the evidence, that this defendant was the proprietor of the Dempsey barber-shop in this county, and that between the 20th day of July, 1915, and the 16th day of April, 1916, he, at said barber-shop, by himself or agents, furnished shaves and hair-cuts to the guests of the Dempsey Hotel and others on the Sabbath, it would be a question of fact for you to determine whether, under all the circumstances of the case, the furnishing by the defendant of such was a work of necessity or charity. The word ‘necessity,’ as used in -the statute, means not- a physical and absolute necessity, but a moral fitness or propriety of the work and labor done, under the circumstances of each particular case.” McCain v. State, 2 Ga. App. 389 (58 S. E. 550).

2. On review this court refuses to overrule or modify the decision of this court in McCain v. State, supra.

3. The verdict having been demanded by the evidence, and the assignments of error being without merit, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and George, J., concur.

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

Ltjke, J.

1. Upon the trial of one charged with a violation of section 416 of the Penal Code (1910) it was not error for the court to refuse to charge the jury:’ “If you believe, from the evidence, that this defendant was the proprietor of the Dempsey barber-shop in this county, and that between the 20th day of July, 1915, and the 16th day of April, 1916, he, at said barber-shop, by himself or agents, furnished shaves and hair-cuts to the guests of the Dempsey Hotel and others on the Sabbath, it would be a question of fact for you to determine whether, under all the circumstances of the case, the furnishing by the defendant of such was a work of necessity or charity. The word ‘necessity,’ as used in -the statute, means not- a physical and absolute necessity, but a moral fitness or propriety of the work and labor done, under the circumstances of each particular case.” McCain v. State, 2 Ga. App. 389 (58 S. E. 550).

2. On review this court refuses to overrule or modify the decision of this court in McCain v. State, supra.

3. The verdict having been demanded by the evidence, and the assignments of error being without merit, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and George, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 879, 19 Ga. App. 448, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack