Hartman v. State
| Citation | 119 Ga. 427,46 S.E. 628 |
| Parties | HARTMAN . v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1904 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
VAGRANCY—EVIDENCE.
1. The evidence for the state was consistent with that for the accused, which made out a good defense, and the verdict finding her guilty should have been set aside on motion for a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Columbus; J. L. Willis, Judge.
Angelina Hartman was convicted of vagrancy, and brings error. Reversed.
J. H. Lewis and A. W. Cozart, for plaintiff in error.
Peter Preer, Sol., for the State.
CANDLER, J. Angelina Hartman was convicted in the city court of Columbus under an accusation charging her with vagrancy. The date named in the accusation was September 7, 1903, and three counts were laid, as follows: (1) That she led an idle, immoral, and profligate life, being able to work, and not working, and having no property to support her; (2) that she had no visible and known means of a fair, honest, and reputable livelihood, being able to work, and having no property to support her; and (3) that, having a fixed abode, and no visible property to support her, she lived by stealing, and by trading and bartering stolen property. There was no evidence whatever to sustain the last count, and it will be treated as having been abandoned by the state. Briefly stated, the material evidence introduced on the trial was as follows: The prosecutor testified that he saw the accused several times during every afternoon from the 1st to the 7th of September, 1003, and that whenever he saw her she was doing no work at all. He added, however, that he had no positive recollection of having seen her on the 1st, 2d, or 3d of September. He testified that she was a lewd woman, that she hung around saloons, and that he bad seen her drinking beer in grocery stores. Of his own knowledge, he could not say whether the accused had any property to support her or not, but she had no visible and known means of a fair, honest, and reputable livelihood, that he knew of. Another witness testified that the house in which the accused lived had the reputation of being a lewd house, that she had seen men and women going into it at all hours of the day, and that it was the worst house she ever saw. Witness had seen her do some work, but since August 17, 1903 (the date of the approval of the Calvin amendment to the vagrancy law of this state), she had not done enough work to support her. This constituted the state's case. The accused proved by witnesses who were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
...shall be construed to mean "reasonably continuous employment at some lawful occupation for reasonable compensation." In Hartman v. State, 119 Ga. 427, 46 S. E. 628, Mr. Justice Candler states that both under the old law and the amendment "the gist of the offense of vagrancy is the failure o......
-
Lewis v. State
...that disclosed by the facts in the present case, the Supreme Court held that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence; and in Hartman v. State, supra, a against the alleged vagrant, when the labor was neither as continuous, as hard or as remunerative as here, was set aside as not suppo......