Spivey v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27235. |
| Citation | 1 S.E.2d 60,59 Ga.App. 380 |
| Parties | SPIVEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
W A. Dampier, of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar L. Long, Jr., Sol., of Macon, for the State.
The defendant was charged with passing a worthless check in the sum of $675, in that he gave such check for the purchase of certain cattle, knowing at the time that he did not have the funds in or credit with the bank upon which it was drawn sufficient for its payment and thereby cheated and defrauded the payee out of said sum. The evidence for the State showed that on September 29, 1937, defendant bought two certain lots of cattle, at an auction sale, from Jones-Neuhoff. That he gave for one lot a check for $1,736 and in a few minutes bought another lot for which he gave the check for $675. The checks were given in Macon, Georgia, and were drawn on a bank in Dublin, Georgia. The seller deposited the check for $1,736 in his bank for collection on September 30, 1937, and the same was presented on October 2, in Dublin Georgia, and returned, being marked "insufficient funds." It was presented again on October 8, and again returned, marked "insufficient funds." After negotiations over the telephone the bank in Dublin notified the payee that arrangements had been made with it whereby this check for $1,736 would be paid if presented. On October 10, 1937, the prosecutor deposited the check for $675 in the bank for collection and it was presented to the bank in Dublin on which it was drawn on October 13, and was returned marked "insufficient funds," and has not been paid since that time. The defendant did not have sufficient funds in the bank that day to pay the check because the bank had already guaranteed the payment of the larger check and the fund on hand was insufficient to pay both checks. The State's witnesses testified that they had made no agreement to hold either check, nor had they extended any credit to the defendant, and that the check for $675 was intentionally held until October 10. The prosecutor testified in reference to the holding of the check as follows: Another witness for the State who handled the depositing of the checks for collection stated that he held out the smaller check until October 10, and said: "I would not have held the checks for him or anybody else except on instructions of Mr. Jones." Mr Jones was the seller. The defendant, in his statement, contended that he had an agreement with Jones that the check for $675 was to be held until he could resell the cattle he was buying, or for ten days at least, and that there was an agreement that the check was not to be deposited for ten days. The seller denied making any such agreement with the defendant.
A clear-cut issue was made by the evidence and the defendant's statement as to whether or not there was an extension of credit for ten days by the alleged agreement to withhold the presentation of the check. The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to charge the jury without request that in the event they believed this contention of the defendant to be true they would not be authorized to find him guilty, as this would be an extension of credit, or in the nature of a post-dated check and would not come within the purview of the statute.
"Upon the trial of a criminal case, the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, with or without request, should instruct them as to the general principles of the law which of necessity must be implied by them in reaching a correct conclusion upon the questions submitted for their consideration." Sledge v. State, 99 Ga. 684, 26 S.E. 756. The State contends in this case that no issue was raised by the evidence as to whether any credit was extended by the seller...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. State
...the trial court "fulfilled its duty to 'charge upon the general principles covering the facts of the case' ... Spivey v. State, 59 Ga.App. 380, 382 (1 SE2d 60)." Wilson v. State, 124 Ga.App. 403, 183 S.E.2d 926 supra. Considering the charge as a whole, we find no error which requires revers......
-
Colson v. State
...must be applied in reaching a correct verdict on the issues. Foskey v. State, 126 Ga.App. 268(1), 190 S.E.2d 556; Spivey v. State, 59 Ga.App. 380, 1 S.E.2d 60; Sledge v. State, 99 Ga. 684(1), 26 S.E. 756; Strickland v. State, 98 Ga. 84(2), 25 S.E. 908. But under the recent decision by the S......
-
Lumpkin v. State
...for their consideration. Driver v. State, 194 Ga. 561, 562, 22 S.E.2d 83; Sledge v. State, 99 Ga. 684(1), 26 S.E. 756; Spivey v. State, 59 Ga.App. 380, 383, 1 S.E.2d 60. Failure to charge on a lesser included offense requires the grant of a new trial. Moore v. State, 151 Ga. 648, 662, 108 S......
-
Cannon v. State, 28223.
...J. M. Cannon, Jr., was convicted of cheating and swindling "in passing a worthless check." For a statement of the case see Spivey v. State, 59 Ga.App. 380, 1 S.E.2d 60. The instant case is controlled adversely to the defendant by the case, of Spivey v. State, decided April 9, 1940, Ga.App.,......