King v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

King v. State

136 S.E. 466, 36 Ga. App. 272, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 7

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17711

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 466 (King 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

King v. State, 136 S.E. 466, 36 Ga. App. 272, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 7 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyles, O. J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the “labor-contract act” (Ga. L. 1903, p. 90; Penal Code, §§ 715, 716). It not having been proved upon the trial that he had no good and sufficient cause for his failure to perform the contract, his conviction was unauthorized. This essential proof was not furnished by the hirer’s testimony that the defendant “had no reason not to work for me so far as I know. . . I did not give him any reason not to come; . . he did not have any reason not to come to work for me, as far as I know.” This testimony amounted to no more than an opinion or conclusion of the hirer, without proof of facts to support it. Durham v. State, 17 Ga. App. 810 (88 S. E. 594), and citations.

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Bkoyles, O. J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the “labor-contract act” (Ga. L. 1903, p. 90; Penal Code, §§ 715, 716). It not having been proved upon the trial that he had no good and sufficient cause for his failure to perform the contract, his conviction was unauthorized. This essential proof was not furnished by the hirer’s testimony that the defendant “had no reason not to work for me so far as I know. . . I did not give him any reason not to come; . . he did not have any reason not to come to work for me, as far as I know.” This testimony amounted to no more than an opinion or conclusion of the hirer, without proof of facts to support it. Durham v. State, 17 Ga. App. 810 (88 S. E. 594), and citations.

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 466, 36 Ga. App. 272, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack