Lamar v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1904 |
| Citation | 47 S.E. 958,120 Ga. 312 |
| Parties | LAMAR . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
COMMON CHEAT—CONTRACT OP HIRING.
1. An act of the General Assembly, approved August 15, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), provides that if any person shall contract with another to perform for him services of any kind, with intent to procure money or other thing of value thereby, and not to perform the service contracted for, to the loss and damage of the hirer, or, after having so contracted, shall procure money or other thing of value from the hirer, with intent not to perform the service, to the loss and damage of the hirer, he shall be deemed a common cheat and swindler, and shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. Held, that such act does not violate the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt; the legislative purpose being, not to punish for a failure to comply with the obligation, but for the fraudulent intention with which the money or other thing of value is procured.
2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Valdosta; W. H. Griffin, Judge.
Kibby Lamar was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Wilcox & Johnson, for plaintiff in error.
S. M. Varnadoe, Sol., for the State.
The accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the act approved August 15, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), which are set forth in the first headnote. In Calhoun's Case, 119 Ga. 312, 46 S. E. 428, which was also a prosecution under this act, no question as to the constitutionality of the act was raised, but attention was there called to the fact that the legislation was probably the result of prior decisions of this court under the laws in reference to cheating and swindling. In addition to the cases cited in Calhoun's Case, see Edge v. State, 114 Ga. 113, 39 S. E. 889. In the present case the accusation was demurred to on the ground that the act provided for imprisonment for debt, and if this objection is well taken the act is void. Civ. Code 1895, § 5718. If the act prescribes a punishment for a simple violation of a contractual obligation, it is beyond the power of the General Assembly. But if its purpose is to punish for fraudulent and deceitful practices, it is valid, even though the fraud or deceit may arise from the failure to comply with a contractual engagement. Fraudulent practices which resulted in one obtaining the money or property of another were in a number of instances denounced as crimes by the common law, and by statute, both in England and in this country, a number of such practices have been declared to be crimes, although the particular practice was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. State
... ... 90), declaring it illegal for ... any person to procure money or other thing of value on a ... contract to perform services, with intent to defraud, is the ... fraudulent intent, which exists at the time of the advance, ... not to perform the services contracted for. Lamar v ... State, 120 Ga. 312, 47 S.E. 958. When, in a prosecution ... under the act above referred to, it appears from the evidence ... that a contract for services was made, and money and other ... things of value were advanced to the servant who went to work ... under the contract, and ... ...
-
Youmans v. State
...be punished for debt (especially not for his individual debt), but for a felonious fraud. The principle is clearly stated in Lamar v. State, 120 Ga. 312, 47 S.E. 958, where, in upholding the act of August 15, 1903. (Acts p. 90), in reference to contracts for the performance of labor, the Su......
-
Mulkey v. State
... ... with interest thereon at the time said labor was to be ... performed, without good and sufficient cause and loss or ... damage to the hirer, shall be deemed presumptive evidence of ... the intent referred to in the preceding section." ... However, in the cases of Lamar v. State, 120 Ga ... 312, 47 S.E. 958, Lamar v. Prosser, 121 Ga. 153, 48 ... S.E. 977, and Banks v. State, 124 Ga. 15, 52 S.E ... 74, 2 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1007, the constitutionality of the ... statute was before the Supreme Court, and it was held that, ... since the act, properly construed, was ... ...
-
Latson v. Wells
... ... that it seeks to punish one for failure to pay a debt, or to ... perform a contract. Banks v. State, 124 Ga. 15, 52 ... S.E. 74, 2 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1007; Townsend v. State, ... 124 Ga. 69, 52 S.E. 293; Lamar v. State, 120 Ga ... 312, 47 S.E. 958; ... ...