Ricks v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ricks v. State

144 S.E. 137, 38 Ga. App. 370, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 241

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1928

Docket19034

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 137 (Ricks 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

Ricks v. State, 144 S.E. 137, 38 Ga. App. 370, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

In a prosecution for cheating and swindling based upon section 719 of the Penal Code of 1910 the gist of the offense is the existence of a fraudulent intent. Moore v. State, 11 Ga. App. 813 (76 S. E. 368). In the instant ease the evidence as to the fraudulent intent of the accused was wholly circumstantial, and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was unauthorized, and that the refusal to grant him a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Price & Spivey, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Civil Code (1910), [373]*373§ 3705; Moore v. State, 11 Ga. App. 813; Foster v. State, 8 Ga. App. 119; Goddard v. State, 2 Ga. App. 154.

D. B. Jackson, solicitor, N. L. Gillis Jr., contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

In a prosecution for cheating and swindling based upon section 719 of the Penal Code of 1910 the gist of the offense is the existence of a fraudulent intent. Moore v. State, 11 Ga. App. 813 (76 S. E. 368). In the instant ease the evidence as to the fraudulent intent of the accused was wholly circumstantial, and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was unauthorized, and that the refusal to grant him a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Price & Spivey, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Civil Code (1910), [373]*373§ 3705; Moore v. State, 11 Ga. App. 813; Foster v. State, 8 Ga. App. 119; Goddard v. State, 2 Ga. App. 154.

D. B. Jackson, solicitor, N. L. Gillis Jr., contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 137, 38 Ga. App. 370, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricks-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack