Abrams v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: EVANS
• Citation: Abrams v. State, 126 Ga. 591, 55 S.E. 497 (Ga. 1906)
• Decision Date: 08 November 1906
• Parties: ABRAMS . v. STATE.

55 S.E. 497

126 Ga. 591

ABRAMS .

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 8, 1906.

1. Master and Servant—Contract for Labor—Fraud—Evidence.

An allegation in an accusation framed under the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), making it illegal for a person to procure money or other thing of value on a contract to perform services with intent to defraud, that the defendant did obtain from the prosecutor an advance of a certain sum of money, is not sustained by proof that the prosecutor paid to a third person the amount of the defendant's debt to such third person, secured by mortgage, took a transfer of the mortgage, and subsequently, as transferee, foreclosed the same.

2. Same—Burden of Proof.

Before a prosecution can be successfully maintained under this act, the burden is upon the state to show that loss or damage was actually sustained by the hirer. Where it appears that advances were made, and that the person to whom the advances were made performed a certain amount of services, but the value of such service is not made to appear, the prosecution fails to carry this burden of proof.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court.of Sparta; F. L Little, Judge.

Gus Abrams was convicted of swindling, and brings error. Reversed.

The offense with which the accused was charged was a violation of the act approved August 15, 1903, "to make it illegal for any person to procure money, or other thing of value, on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud, " etc. Acts 1903, p. 90.

The accusation alleged that the accused, after fraudulently entering into a contract with W. O. Garrett to perform for him services as a share cropper during the year 1900, intending at the time to defraud him by not rendering the services contracted for, did obtain from him advances on the contract, consisting of corn, meat, flour, tobacco, and meal, to the amount of $14, and the further sum of $76.14 in money, to his loss and damage in the sum of $90.14, no part of which has been returned to him; the contract not being performed, and no cause having been given for the nonperformance of said services. The trial resulted in the conviction of the accused, and the question presented by her motion for a new trial is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. The prosecutor testified: The contract was that the defendant was to farm with me on halves, she and her children to do the work, and I made her advances on that contract Shewanted me to "pay up" what she owed at the bank first, and I straightened up that, and then let her have provisions after she moved to my house. The amount I advanced to her in money at the bank was, I believe, $76.14, and the provisions advanced to her amounted to about $14. The bank, as security for the debt due by her to it, held a mortgage on a mule, a buggy, and some cows, and "I had that paper transferred to me. That property that she had mortgaged to the bank was levied on and sold." It brought only $37. The cost of sale amounted to $8.19, "so that I only got $26.81, and that amount deducted from the $76 leaves the amount she now owes me in addition to the $14 for provisions that I furnished." The accused "didn't carry out the contract. She didn't stay as she promised. She left. She stayed awhile and left. I did not give her any cause for leaving, " and "she didn't give me no reason, except she said I tapped the bell when it got time for her to go to work after dinner to let her know what time to start; * * * said she was not going to work by no such as that. She was not going to have no bell rung where she stayed at; was going to boss her own business. * * * She moved to my house somewhere about the 1st of January. She stayed...