The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1914-03-28
LABOR CONTRACT DECISION.
REVERS,ES LOWER COURT ON
BREACH OF CONTRACT
CASE.
Court Holds In This Case Matter
Goes to Foundation of the Offence.

COiumDla, March 23.-The Supreme
Court today reversed the Circuit
Court in an important case, involving
breach OF contract. The opinion is
by Associate Justice d. e. Hydrick
and the case Is that Of the State
against Jim Williams. Section 492 of
the Criminal Code, says the opinion,
provides: ANY person who shall con-
tract with another to render him per-
sonal service Of any kind, and shall
thereafter fraudulently, or with mali
cious intent to injure his employer,
fail or refuse to render such service
as agreed upon, shall be found guilty
Of misdemeanor.' Section 49i
makes the breach of the contract by
employee, without sufficient cause and
to the injury of the employer, prima
facie evidence that his violation was
fraudulent and with malicious intent
to injure his employer. Section 497
provides that the contract may be
verbal or in writing; IL in writing it
shall be witnessed by one or more dis
interested PERSONS; If verbal it must
be witnessed by at least two disinter-
ested persons. not related by blood or
marriage. within the sixth degree, to
either party.
The defendant, Jim Williams, was
convicted under the statute. in mag
istrate's court, on a warrant which
charged only, after setting forth the
time and place, that he did enter
into a contract with one A. 3. Con-
nelly, by which he was to work for
wages for the said Connely for the
months Of March, April, May, June,
July. September. October and Novem-
Der. for salary of $12 per month; that
on the 22d day OF May, 1918, he
preached the contract contrary to the
form Of the statute in such cases made
and provided" The only testimony,
relates the opinion, TO support the
charge was that Of Connolly. the en-
ployer. which was as follows:
II employed this man, Jim Will
liams. to work for me during the
months Of March. April, May June,
July, September, October and Novem-
Der. / was to pay him $12 per month.
l was to pay him monthly. have
carried out my part of the said con-
tract On ED Of May, / sent him to
the field to cut some oats and he left,
and have not seen him since, until
this morning, June 4, 1913"
Upon this evidence the defendant
was convicted and sentenced. He
was not represented by counsel at
the trial. Afterwards he employed
counsel, who appealed on several
grounds, the gist OF which were that
the affidavit and warrant did not state
facts constituting any offence known
to the law in that there was no al
legation as to whether the contract
was verbal or in writing, total failure
OF proof that the defendant committed
the offence for which he was tried ;
total failure of proof that the con-
tract was witnessed according to law.
The court dismissed the appeal on the
ground that the magistrate had not
been called upon to pass on these
points, either or any of them.
The Supreme Courts decision says
this is a good general rule to fol-
low. but in this case the matter goes
to tho very foundation Of the of
fence.
Concluding the opinion says: "In
this case the warrant does not al
legc, nor does the testimony show
whether the contract was verbal or
In writing, or whether it was witness
ed as required by the statute. If it
was not so witnessed, whether verbal
or In writing. conviction cannot be
prcdicated upon it,"
Inc court points out that these de-
iect3 i'm the warrant are fatal and the
circuit Court Is reversed.