Towsend v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1905
• Citation: 52 S.E. 293,124 Ga. 69
• Parties: TOWSEND. v. STATE. SAME . v. BROACH.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 293

124 Ga. 69

TOWSEND.

v.STATE.

SAME .

v.BROACH.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 9, 1905.

1. Constitutional Law—Contract of Employment—Fraudulent Breach.

The act approved August 15, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), entitled "An act to make it illegal for any person to procure money, or other thing of value on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud, and to fix the punishment therefor, and for other purposes, " is not repugnant to the Constitution of Georgia, nor to the Constitution of the United States, for any of the reasons assigned in the demurrer to the accusation based upon a violation of the terms of said act.

2. Same—Evidence.

But, the verdict being without evidence to support it, the court erred in not granting a new trial.

3. Habeas Corpus—Illegal Detention.

Inasmuch as the act above referred to was not void as being unconstitutional, the detention of the defendant under the sentence of the court upon his conviction of the offense of being a common cheat and swindler under the provisions of said act was not illegal.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Floyd County; Harper Hamilton, Judge.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; Moses Wright, Judge.

Jim Towsend was convicted of crime, and brings error. Reversed.

He also brings habeas corpus against T. B. Broach, jailer. Judgment for defendant, and petitioner brings error. Affirmed.

H. F. Sharp, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Ennis, Sol. Gen., for defendants in error.

BECK, J. Towsend was accused of being a common cheat and swindler under the provisions of the act approved August 15, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90); the accusation charging that, after having contracted to perform certain services for the prosecutor, he procured money and other things of value from him with intent not to perform the services, "to the loss and damage of" the prosecutor. The accused demurred to the accusation, on the ground that it did not set out with sufficient certainty the articles of merchandise alleged to have been advanced. He also demurred on the ground that the statute under which the defendant was accused was void, being contrary to the principles contained in article 1, § 1, par. 17, of the Constitution of Georgia, as well as contravening the federal Constitution, and violating the law in reference to peonage as contained in section 5526 of the United States Compiled Statutes of 1901. Roth demurrers were overruled, to which the defendant excepted pendente lite, and the case preceeded to a trial. Upon the hearing the prosecutor testified that under the contract referred to in the accusation he was to furnish the accused with 25 acres of land and a mule, the accused was to furnish the labor and supplies, and they were to divide the proceeds of the crop. It was further agreed that the prosecutor was to procure the supplies for the defendant, and that the defendant was to pay him for them out of the defendant's share of the crop. The prosecutor also testified: "He rented the land from me, and agreed to cultivate the land on the halves." The defendant in his statement contended that he had rented the land from the prosecutor, and that, as to the money he bad gotten from the prosecutor, he intended to work for one Hight in order to get money with which to pay it; that he was thus at work for Hight when he was arrested. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, upon the general grounds, and because the court refused written requests to give in charge the following: "A cropper is not a hirer in the sense of the statute." "Confinement in jail is good and sufficient excuse for not complying with his contract." "Before you can convict, the state must show that, before the defendant was confined in the jail of Floyd county, the time had come when the money was to be paid or the labor performed." The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.

1. The contention of the plaintiff in error that the court erred in overruling his demurrer upon all the grounds thereof, which are substantially set forth above, is settled adversely to him by the ruling of this court in the case of Lamar v. State, 120 Ga. 312, 47 S. E. 958. The ruling in that...