Mack v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mack v. State

85 S.E. 615, 16 Ga. App. 410, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 649

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 3, 1915

Docket6456

StatusPublished

This text of 85 S.E. 615 (Mack 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

Mack v. State, 85 S.E. 615, 16 Ga. App. 410, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. There is no merit in the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions. As to the first ground of the motion, see Acts of 1911, p. 149; Collins v. State, 12 Ga. App. 635 (77 S. E. 1079); Nobles v. State, 14 Ga. App. 480 (81 S. E. 370). As to the second ground, see Bailey & Carney Buggy Co. v. Guthrie, 1 Ga. App. 350 (58 S. E. 103).

•2. The evidence was wholly insufficient to show an intent to defraud on the ; part of the accused, within the' meaning of section 715 of the Penal Code; and for this reason his conviction was not authorized.

Judgment reversed,.

The defendant’s statement was as follows:. I hired to Mr. Bouk'night, as he says, and I got a dollar from him on December 19. The reason I did not go back to work the next week was that it was raining and there was nothing I could do. The reason I did not want to work for Mr. Bouknight afterwards was because I could not get a settlement with him for the last two months’ work that I did for him. He owes me some now for my work.

M. 0. Barwich, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Phillips, solicitor, contra.

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