Jones v. State

84 S.E. 988, 16 Ga. App. 216, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 550
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 20, 1915·No. 6278·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Bboyles, J.

An essential element of the offense of violating section 715 of the Penal Code (known as the “labor-conti-act act”), and one which the State must prove, is that the accused failed to perform the services contracted for, or failed to return the money advanced, “without good and sufficient cause.” Glenn v. State, 123 Ga. 585 (51 S. E. 605); Johnson v. State, 125 Ga. 243 (54 S. E. 184); Brown v. State, 8 Ga. App. 212 (68 S. E. 865); Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (78 S. E. 853); Hudson v. State, 14 Ga. App. 490 (81 S. E. 362); Lewis v. State, 15 Ga. App. 405 (83 S. E. 439); and Tennyson v. State, ante, 214 (84 S. E. 988). The record does not show that this material fact was proved; consequently the conviction of the accused was unauthorized, and the judgment of the court below, overruling the motion for a new trial, must be reversed. Judgment reversed.

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

Jones v. State, 84 S.E. 988, 16 Ga. App. 216, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

84 S.E. 988 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barlow v. State
156 S.E. 641 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Dixon v. State
111 S.E. 69 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Allen v. State
95 S.E. 872 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Durham v. State
88 S.E. 594 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)