Case ID: ga-app_17/html/0810-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

7237.
    Durham v. The State.
    Decided April 17, 1916.
    Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Athens —Judge West. December 20, 1915.
    
      Henry C. Tuclc, for plaintiff in error.
    
      S. G. Upson, solicitor, contra.
   Broyles, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the “labor-contract act” (Acts 1903, p. '90, Penal Code, §§ 715, 716). It not having been proved that he had no good and sufficient cause for his failure to perform the contract, the conviction was unauthorized. Johnson v. State, 125 Ga. 243 (3), 246 (54 S. E. 184); Mobley v. State, 4 Ga. App. 78 (60 S. E. 803);Hankinson v. State, 6 Ga. App. 793 (65 S. E. 837); Brown v. State, 8 Ga. App. 211 (2), 212 (68 S. E. 865); Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (2), 13 (78 S. E. 853); Jones v. State, 16 Ga. App. 216 (84 S. E. 88). This essential proof was not furnished by the hirer’s'testimony that he did not give the defendant any cause to quit. The testimony on this point amounted to no more than an opinion or conclusion, without proof of facts to support it. Moreover, proof that the hirer did not give the defendant cause to quit would not of itself show that there was no good and sufficient cause. See Smiley v. State, 14 Ga. App. 15 (80 S. E. 31); Mobley v. State, 13 Ga. App. 730 (79 S. E. 907).

Judgment reversed.

Russell, G. J., absent.