White v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. State

100 S.E. 39, 24 Ga. App. 74, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 416

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 16, 1919

Docket10512

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 39 (White 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

White v. State, 100 S.E. 39, 24 Ga. App. 74, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, P. J.

1. Before a tenant can legally be convicted, under sections 720 and 721 of the Penal Code (1910), of defrauding his landlord, it must appear from the evidence that the sale of the crops by the tenant was without the consent of the landlord; that loss to the landlord resulted from the sale; and that the tenant made the sale with intent to defraud the landlord. Unless all three of these essential elements of the offense are shown, the defendant’s conviction is unauthorized. Morrison v. State, 111 Ga. 642 (36 S. E. 902); Reece v. State, 5 Ga. App. 663 (63 S. E. 670); Thompson v. State, 12 Ga. App. 201 (76 S. E. 1072).

2. Under the above ruling, and the facts of the instant case as disclosed by the record, the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

3. It is unnecessary to consider the amendment to the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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

Bboyles, P. J.

1. Before a tenant can legally be convicted, under sections 720 and 721 of the Penal Code (1910), of defrauding his landlord, it must appear from the evidence that the sale of the crops by the tenant was without the consent of the landlord; that loss to the landlord resulted from the sale; and that the tenant made the sale with intent to defraud the landlord. Unless all three of these essential elements of the offense are shown, the defendant’s conviction is unauthorized. Morrison v. State, 111 Ga. 642 (36 S. E. 902); Reece v. State, 5 Ga. App. 663 (63 S. E. 670); Thompson v. State, 12 Ga. App. 201 (76 S. E. 1072).

2. Under the above ruling, and the facts of the instant case as disclosed by the record, the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

3. It is unnecessary to consider the amendment to the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 39, 24 Ga. App. 74, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack