Millinder v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COBB
• Citation: Millinder v. State, 52 S. E. 760, 124 Ga. 462 (Ga. 1905)
• Decision Date: 21 December 1905
• Parties: MILLINDER. v. STATE.

52 S.E. 760

124 Ga. 462

MILLINDER.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 21, 1905.

1. Master and Servant — Contract of Hiring—False Pretenses—Evidence. It is not necessary in an indictment 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 perforin services with intent to defraud, to allege that the term of service had expired before the indictment was preferred. Proof of a failure to perform the sevices contracted for, and proof of failure to return the money or other thing of value advanced, even during the term of service provided for in the contract, is sufficient, under the act, to establish prima facie the intent to defraud which the act punishes.

2. Same—Loss to Hirer.

Loss or damage to the hirer is an essential ingredient to the offense defined in the act above referred to.

3. Same—Evidence.

The evidence discloses that there was no loss or damage to the hirer, the verdict was unauthorized, and it was error to refuse to grant a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Dawson; A. M. Raines, Judge.

Aaron Millinder was convicted of contracting to perform services with intent to defraud, and brings error. Reversed.

Aaron Millinder was convicted on an accusation charging him with cheating and swindling, under the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90). There was demurrer to the accusation, upon the ground that the time in which the labor contracted for was to be performed had not expired at the date of the accusation, and that the time in which the money procured by reason of the contract might be repaid, as provided in the act, had not expired. This demurrer was overruled. After conviction, a motion for a new trial upon the general grounds was made and overruled.

M. C. Edwards, for plaintiff in error.

M. J. Yeomans, Sol., for the State.

COBB, P. J. There was no merit in the demurrer to the accusation. The offense with which the defendant was charged was the procurement of money and other things of value by entering into a contract to perform labor as a cropper which he had no intention to perform. The act provides that satisfactory proof of the contract, the procuring of money, the failure to perform the services so contracted for, or failure to return the money so advanced, with interest thereon, at the time said labor was to be performed, etc., shall be deemed presumptive evidence of the intent to defraud. The failure to perform the services contracted for is...