Sheffield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sheffield v. State

78 S.E. 828, 13 Ga. App. 78, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 8, 1913

Docket4953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 828 (Sheffield 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

Sheffield v. State, 78 S.E. 828, 13 Ga. App. 78, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, O. J.

1. To authorize a conviction under the “labor-contract act” of . 1903 (Penal Code, § 715), the evidence must show a contract of service, distinct and definite as to all essential terms, such as the time when the contract is to commence and terminate, the amount of wages to be paid, how the laborer is to work, whether by the day, week, month, or year, where he is to work, and the character of the work to be performed. Starling v. State, 5 Ga. App. 171 (62 S. E. 993); Mosely v. State, 2 Ga. App. 189 (58 S. E. 298); Glenn v. State, 123 Ga. 585 (51 S. E. 605); McCoy v. State, 124 Ga. 218 (52 S. E. 434); Presley v. State, 124 Ga. 446 (52 S. E. 750); Thorn v. State, ante, 10 (78 S. E. 853).

2. A verbal contract alleged to have been made in March, 1912, by which the laborer agreed “to work for the prosecutor from January 1st, 1913, to July 1st, 1913, at $20 per month,” is too indefinite as to some of the essential terms (such as the place where the work was to be done, and the character of the work to be performed) to be the basis of a prosecution for cheating and swindling under the above-mentioned act.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, O. J.

1. To authorize a conviction under the “labor-contract act” of . 1903 (Penal Code, § 715), the evidence must show a contract of service, distinct and definite as to all essential terms, such as the time when the contract is to commence and terminate, the amount of wages to be paid, how the laborer is to work, whether by the day, week, month, or year, where he is to work, and the character of the work to be performed. Starling v. State, 5 Ga. App. 171 (62 S. E. 993); Mosely v. State, 2 Ga. App. 189 (58 S. E. 298); Glenn v. State, 123 Ga. 585 (51 S. E. 605); McCoy v. State, 124 Ga. 218 (52 S. E. 434); Presley v. State, 124 Ga. 446 (52 S. E. 750); Thorn v. State, ante, 10 (78 S. E. 853).

2. A verbal contract alleged to have been made in March, 1912, by which the laborer agreed “to work for the prosecutor from January 1st, 1913, to July 1st, 1913, at $20 per month,” is too indefinite as to some of the essential terms (such as the place where the work was to be done, and the character of the work to be performed) to be the basis of a prosecution for cheating and swindling under the above-mentioned act.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 828, 13 Ga. App. 78, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-state-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack