H1ght0wer v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1884
• Parties: H1GHT0WER. vs. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

72 Ga. 482

H1GHT0WER. vs. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

FEBRUARY TERM, 1884.

Criminal Law. Master and Servant. Contracts. Hiring. Before Judge Clark. City Court of Atlanta. September Term, 1883.

Reported in the decision.

Jas. A. Gray, for plaintiff in error.

W. D. Ellis solicitor city court, for the state.

Hall, Justice.

The indictment contained two counts, one for employing the servant of another, during the term for which hewas employed, and who was under a written contract, attested by one witness, the defendant knowing that the servant was so employed, and that his term of service was not then expired, and the other for enticing, persuading and decoying the said servant, who was under contract as aforesaid, knowing that he was the servant of the prosecutor, and that his term of service had not expired. There was a conviction and a motion for a new trial upon various grounds, which was denied, and hence this writ of error.

It will be necessary to consider only two questions made by this motion:

First. Does the statute under which this indictment is framed (Code, §4500) require that the contract shall be signed both by master and servant, in order to subject to prosecution a party knowingly employing or enticing the servant during the term for which he engaged?

Second. What is the meaning of " employing, " as used in this act? Does it embrace a case where the servant is specially permitted, during the term for which he was hired to another, to work for the benefit of a defendant, and to serve him in any capacity, either special or general, without any stipulation as to the length of service or compensation therefor? Is this such an employment as will violate the statute?

1. We will consider these propositions in their inverse order. It is contended that the term " employment, " in its legal sense, means " hiring, " and that, as by the Code, §2085, hiring is a contract by which one person grants to another the use of the labor and industry either of himself or his servant, during a certain time, for a stipulated compensation, that the court erred in charging the •jury, if they believed from the evidence that the defendant specially permitted the prosecutor's servant to serve him in any capacity which was beneficial to him, during the term that the defendant knew the servant was employed in the manner prescribed by law by another, then they would be authorized to find him guilty; that " touse a servant for a special or general purpose, inconsistent with his duty to his employer, with a mutual benefit, is a sufficient employment under this statute." This charge, it seems to us, accurately defines the term " employment, " as used in the statute. The idea of " hiring " may be involved in " employment, " but its application is not restricted to any particular mode of use, as hiring. Use is synonymous with employment, and both...