Sterling v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Sterling v. State

54 S.E. 921, 126 Ga. 92, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 330

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 28, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 S.E. 921 (Sterling v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sterling v. State, 54 S.E. 921, 126 Ga. 92, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 330 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

•Cobb, P. J.

1. The gravamen of the offense defined by the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), declaring it illegal for any person to procure money or other thing of value on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud, is the fraudulent intent, which exists at the time of the advance, not to perform the services contracted for. Lamar v. State, 120 Ga. 312.

2. When, in a prosecution under the act above referred to, it appears from the evidence that a contract for services was made and money and other things of value were advanced to the servant who went to work under the contract, and thereafter a disagreement arose between the employer 1 and the servant as to the character of the work embraced in the contract, and as a result of this disagreement a quarrel arose between them ■•and the servant left the employer on account of threats of violence made by the employer, the presumption arising under the act that he procured the goods with fraudulent intent was overcome, and a verdict finding the defendant guilty was unauthorized.

.Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

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

•Cobb, P. J.

1. The gravamen of the offense defined by the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), declaring it illegal for any person to procure money or other thing of value on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud, is the fraudulent intent, which exists at the time of the advance, not to perform the services contracted for. Lamar v. State, 120 Ga. 312.

2. When, in a prosecution under the act above referred to, it appears from the evidence that a contract for services was made and money and other things of value were advanced to the servant who went to work under the contract, and thereafter a disagreement arose between the employer 1 and the servant as to the character of the work embraced in the contract, and as a result of this disagreement a quarrel arose between them ■•and the servant left the employer on account of threats of violence made by the employer, the presumption arising under the act that he procured the goods with fraudulent intent was overcome, and a verdict finding the defendant guilty was unauthorized.

.Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 S.E. 921, 126 Ga. 92, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-state-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack