Skinner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Skinner v. State

139 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 153, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 537

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1927

Docket18238

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 90 (Skinner 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

Skinner v. State, 139 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 153, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

“ 'In a prosecution for a violation of the “labor-contract act” [Penal Code 1910, § 715], the State, to complete its presumptive case, must show that there was no good reason why the contract was [154]*154not performed, or no good reason why the accused did not return the money advanced to him. Without this proof the case for the State is incomplete, because the prosecution has failed to create the evidentiary presumption necessary to rebut the presumption of innocence.’ Lewis v. State, 15 Ga. App. 406 (83 S. E. 439). It does not affirmatively appear in this case that the failure to perform the services contracted for or to return the money advanced was without good and sufficient cause.” Gatlin v. State, 16 Ga. App. 232 (84 S. E. 973). Under the authority quoted above, the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided July 26, 1927. D. 8. Strickland, for plaintiff in error. 8. W. Ragsdale, solicitor-general, J. R. Hutcheson, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

“ 'In a prosecution for a violation of the “labor-contract act” [Penal Code 1910, § 715], the State, to complete its presumptive case, must show that there was no good reason why the contract was [154]*154not performed, or no good reason why the accused did not return the money advanced to him. Without this proof the case for the State is incomplete, because the prosecution has failed to create the evidentiary presumption necessary to rebut the presumption of innocence.’ Lewis v. State, 15 Ga. App. 406 (83 S. E. 439). It does not affirmatively appear in this case that the failure to perform the services contracted for or to return the money advanced was without good and sufficient cause.” Gatlin v. State, 16 Ga. App. 232 (84 S. E. 973). Under the authority quoted above, the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided July 26, 1927. D. 8. Strickland, for plaintiff in error. 8. W. Ragsdale, solicitor-general, J. R. Hutcheson, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 153, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack