Mooney v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mooney v. State

123 S.E. 734, 32 Ga. App. 448, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 451

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1924

Docket15538

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 734 (Mooney 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

Mooney v. State, 123 S.E. 734, 32 Ga. App. 448, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwokth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

In Leonard v. State, 5 Ga. App. 494 (63 S. E. 530), Judge Bussell said: “Though numerous witnesses, whose testimony is uncontradicted, testified that they had not seen the defendant work, that he had no visible means of support, and that he was always loafing in idleness when they saw him (and all of these witnesses saw him frequently), this evidence, though true, must yield, in a prosecution for vagrancy, to positive evidence, not necessarily in conflict therewith, and equally uneontradicted, that the defendant had earned and had been paid an amount of money sufficient to maintain him honestly, though only in a meager style, even though he were capable of earning much more.” The ruling in that case is controlling in this, and the court erred in refusing a new trial. See Daniel v. State, 110 Ga. 915 (36 S. E. 393); Randall v. State, 23 Ga. App. 539 (99 S. E. 60).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and I Alice, J., concur.

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

Bloodwokth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

In Leonard v. State, 5 Ga. App. 494 (63 S. E. 530), Judge Bussell said: “Though numerous witnesses, whose testimony is uncontradicted, testified that they had not seen the defendant work, that he had no visible means of support, and that he was always loafing in idleness when they saw him (and all of these witnesses saw him frequently), this evidence, though true, must yield, in a prosecution for vagrancy, to positive evidence, not necessarily in conflict therewith, and equally uneontradicted, that the defendant had earned and had been paid an amount of money sufficient to maintain him honestly, though only in a meager style, even though he were capable of earning much more.” The ruling in that case is controlling in this, and the court erred in refusing a new trial. See Daniel v. State, 110 Ga. 915 (36 S. E. 393); Randall v. State, 23 Ga. App. 539 (99 S. E. 60).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and I Alice, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 734, 32 Ga. App. 448, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack