Mondschien v. State

• Decision Date: 30 January 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 383
• Parties: MONDSCHIEN v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 383

18 S.W. 383

MONDSCHIEN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 30, 1892.

Error to circuit court, Perry county; RUFUS D. HEARN, Judge.

Indictment against D. Mondschien for willfully inducing Neal Johnson to violate his contract of employment with one J. Jacobson, as the agent of Bertha Cohn. Verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon. Motion for new trial denied. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The court charged as follows: "The jury are instructed that if they find from the evidence in the case that Neal Johnson rented the land from J. Jacobson, as the agent of Mrs. Cohn, and that Neal Johnson was to make a crop on said land, and was to have the control and management of the farm, and was to manage and control the farming operations on said land, and control as to the manner of working and cultivating said crop, said Neal Johnson would then be a tenant, and not a laborer. But if you find from the evidence that said Neal Johnson was to occupy the place, and work and cultivate said crop, under the direction and management of Mrs. Cohn, or her agent, J. Jacobson, and as such was to receive one-half of the crop raised, he would then be a laborer."

J. F. Sellers, for appellant. W. E. Atkinson, Atty. Gen., and Chas. T. Coleman, for the State.

HEMINGWAY, J.

The statute which regulates the liens of laborers and employers makes it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully interfere with or entice away, or knowingly to employ, or induce to leave his employer or the place rented, any laborer or renter, who had contracted as therein provided, before the expiration of his contract. Mansf. Dig. § 4451. The indictment charges that the defendant violated this statute by willfully enticing away and knowingly employing one under a contract to labor for a year, during the term of the contract. A demurrer to the indictment was interposed upon the ground that the contract of employment as charged was for a year, and it was not alleged that the contract was in writing. The original act provided that contracts for labor for a longer term than one month should be void, unless made in writing, (Id. § 4442;) but this provision was amended by the act of March 22, 1887, which provided that such contracts alone as should be made for a longer term than one year need be in writing, (Acts 1887, p. 108;) and, as this offense was charged to have been committed after the amendment became operative, this cause is to be determined according to the law as amended. But it is contended that the amendment applies only to the section which...