Vinson v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1905
• Citation: Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19, 52 S.E. 79 (Ga. 1905)
• Parties: VINSON. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 79

124 Ga. 19

VINSON.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 8, 1905.

1. Master and Servant — Contact for Services—Fraud— Cropper.

A "cropper, " who is himself to perform services and labor in making the crop, is within the provisions of the act of 1903, "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."

2. Infants—Liability for Crime.

A minor who has arrived at the age of criminal responsibility may be convicted under the act of 1903 of the fraudulent practices made penal by that act, although a contract of service made by him may not be civilly enforceable.

3. Criminal Law—New Trial—Review.

A ground of a motion for a new trial alleging error in the admission of the testimony of a named witness "as to the damage sustained by him on account of the breach of contract, " and also "as to the intent" of the accused, without setting out the evidence objected to, cannot be considered.

4. Same.

None of the other grounds urged require a reversal.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Sylvania; J. W. Overstreet, Judge.

Henry Vinson was convicted of procuring money on a contract to perform services with intent to defraud, and brings error. Affirmed.

An accusation was brought in the city court of Sylvania against Henry Vinson, charging him with procuring money and other articles of value on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud the hirer, under the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90). He filed a demurrer to the accusation, and, upon its being overruled, filed a bill of exceptions pendente lite. He was convicted, moved for a new trial, and upon the overruling of the motion excepted.

H. S. White, for plaintiff in error.

H. A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN, J. (after stating the facts). 1. One ground of the demurrer was that the defendant was not a laborer, but "a share cropper, " during the year 1905, and therefore did not fall within the act of 1903. Civ. Code 1895, § 3131, declares: "Where one is employed to work for a part of the crop, the relation of landlord and tenant does not arise. The title to the crop, subject to the interest of the cropper therein, and the possession of the land remain in the owner." A cropper does not occupy the position of a partner. Padgett v. Ford, 117 Ga. 508, 43 S. E. 1002; De Loach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S. E. 204. If the agreement is, not that he shall perform services himself, but shall procure and furnish labor, he is not a servant, but a contractor. Barron v. Collins, 49 Ga. 580; Duncan v. Anderson, 56 Ga. 398. If he is to work himself, he is a laborer. It has been held that part of the crop to which the cropper is entitled is in the nature of wages, and that, if the owner of the land wrongfully refuses to comply with his obligation, the cropper may assert a laborer's lien on the crop grown by him. McElmurray v. Turner, 86 Ga. 215, 12 S. E. 359; De Loach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S. E. 204. It was held in Hoyt v. Glenn, 54 Ga. 571, that "the affidavit for the enforcement of a laborer's lien under the act of 1869 must allege that the work was done by the plaintiff claiming such lien." See, also, Mabry v. Judkins, 66 Ga. 732; Hinton v. Goode, 73 Ga. 233 (2); Cochran v. Swann, 53 Ga. 39. In McElmurray v. Turner, however, it was held: "Part of the labor furnished by her [the cropper] being that of her two minor children, she being a widow, she was entitled to the lien for that part, as well as for the labor she did in person." Whatever may be the case as to minor children, it is quite clear that under these decisions a cropper, who is himself to perform services and labor, relatively to the provisions of the act of 1903, occupies the position of one who contracts to perform services, and who is to be compensated by receiving a share of the crop raised. The act of 1903 declares 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 services contracted for, to the loss and damage of the hirer; or having so contracted, shall procure from the hirer money, or other thing of value, with intent not to perform such services, " etc. Acts 1903, p. 90. The accusation charges that the accused, "after having contracted with the said H. D. Lee, to perform for said H. D. Lee services as a share cropper during the year 1905, did with force and arms, and after he had made said contract, and with intent not to perform said services, and with intent to defraud the said H. D. Lee, " etc. We think this alleges that the accused was a cropper who was himself to perform services, and that he therefore fell within the terms of the act of 1903. Ward v. State, 70 Miss. 245, 12 South. 249; McCutchin v. Taylor, 11 Lea, 259.

2. It was made a ground of the motion for a new trial that the accused should not have been convicted, because he was a minor, and could not lawfully contract, and that any contract made by him to perform services was voidable. If the act of 1903 declared it to be a criminal offense to violate a contract, not only would the position above stated be sound, but the act would be...