Broznack v. State

• Decision Date: 25 January 1900
• Citation: 35 S.E. 123,109 Ga. 514
• Parties: BROZNACK v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

35 S.E. 123

109 Ga. 514

BROZNACK v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 25, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An allegation in an accusation that a given representation was made to one member of a firm, with a view to procuring credit, is not supported by evidence showing that such a representation was made solely to another member of that firm.

2. A charge of cheating and swindling, alleged to have been committed by making false representations as to financial condition, thereby obtaining credit, is not sustained when it affirmatively appears that the goods sold on the faith of those representations were actually paid for. Such representations, not repeated or reaffirmed, do not, for purposes of the penal statute, apply to credit given at a subsequent period, unless the person to whom the credit was extended knew, or had reason to believe, that the latter credit was extended solely on the faith of the representations previously made.

3. It was improper for counsel representing the state to say, in his argument to the jury, that he would not appear in the case if he "did not believe the defendant to be as guilty as any man that was ever tried in the court house," and the court should not have approved of such argument as legitimate.

Error from criminal court of Atlanta; A. E. Calhoun, Judge.

Jake Broznack was convicted of swindling, and brings error. Reversed.

Mozley & Griffin, for plaintiff in error.

J. F O'Neill, for the State.

COBB J.

Broznack was arraigned in the criminal court of Atlanta on an accusation charging him with cheating and swindling, and was convicted. He made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.

1. The accusation charged that the accused made certain false representations as to his financial standing to T. J Stovall, a member of the mercantile firm of W. W. Stovall & Bro., and that upon the faith of these representations credit was extended. The evidence introduced showed that representations of the character alleged in the accusation were made to W. W. Stovall, and there was no evidence showing that any of the representations were made to T. J. Stovall. Proof of representations made to W. W. Stovall did not support the allegation made in the accusation, and a verdict finding the accused guilty was contrary to law, and should have been set aside.

2. It appeared from the evidence that on October 6, 1897, the accused made certain representations as to his financial standing to a member of the firm of Stovall & Bro., and purchased from them a bill of goods amounting to $60.35. On October 20th he made another purchase, and still other purchases on November 15th and December 1st. On November 15th he paid the amount of the first bill, and on December 1st the amount of the second. He therefore still owes for the purchases made on November 15th and December 1st. The only representations as to his financial standing which he ever made to the firm from which he made the purchases were those made on October 6th, and these were never reaffirmed by him. In the case of Treadwell v. State, 99 Ga. 779, 27 S.E. 785,...