Roberts v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberts v. State

65 S.E. 359, 6 Ga. App. 574, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 395

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1909

Docket1985

StatusPublished

This text of 65 S.E. 359 (Roberts 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

Roberts v. State, 65 S.E. 359, 6 Ga. App. 574, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 395 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, O. J.

1. In an accusation of a violation of the “labor-contract act” of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), the contract on which it was charged that the accused fraudulently obtained an advance of money and provisions was stated to have been entered into by him with a named' individual. The evidence showed that the contract in question was made by the accused, not with the named individual in his individual capacity, but as superintendent of the Spalding county farm, and that the money and provisions advanced to the accused on said contract were the property, not of the individual, as stated in the accusation, but of the county. Held, that this constituted a material variance between the allegata and the probata. Williams v. State, 124 Ga. 136 (53 S. E. 156); Young v. State, Id. 788 (53 S. E. 101).

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Griffin — Judge Flynt. June 12, 1909.

Argued July 14, — Decided July 31, 1909. Philip PL Cleveland, T. P. Patterson, for plaintiff in error. William PL. Beck, solicitor, contra.

2. Tlie evidence fails to show any fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant in procuring the money and provisions on his contract. Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 521 (57 S. E. 1022). Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, O. J.

1. In an accusation of a violation of the “labor-contract act” of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), the contract on which it was charged that the accused fraudulently obtained an advance of money and provisions was stated to have been entered into by him with a named' individual. The evidence showed that the contract in question was made by the accused, not with the named individual in his individual capacity, but as superintendent of the Spalding county farm, and that the money and provisions advanced to the accused on said contract were the property, not of the individual, as stated in the accusation, but of the county. Held, that this constituted a material variance between the allegata and the probata. Williams v. State, 124 Ga. 136 (53 S. E. 156); Young v. State, Id. 788 (53 S. E. 101).

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Griffin — Judge Flynt. June 12, 1909.

Argued July 14, — Decided July 31, 1909. Philip PL Cleveland, T. P. Patterson, for plaintiff in error. William PL. Beck, solicitor, contra.

2. Tlie evidence fails to show any fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant in procuring the money and provisions on his contract. Mulkey v. State, 1 Ga. App. 521 (57 S. E. 1022). Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 359, 6 Ga. App. 574, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack