GA Code § 44-14-8 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 44 - Property|Chapter 14 - Mortgages, Conveyances to Secure Debt, and Liens|Article 1 - In General|§ 44-14-8. Removal or Other Disposal of Encumbered Property in Order to Hinder Levy; Penalty; Venue

 Any mortgagor, any giver of a purchase money lien, a lien for rent, or any lien created by contract between the parties, or the holder or possessor of any property under such mortgage or liens who runs off, removes, hides, or in any way disposes of the property under the mortgage or lien so as to hinder, delay, or prevent the levying officer of the county of the defendant's bona fide residence from levying on the property covered by the mortgage or lien by virtue of the foreclosure of the mortgage or lien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The venue shall be in the county of the defendant's bona fide residence where the search is made.   (Ga. L. 1918, p. 262, § 1; Code 1933, § 67-9902.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 1962, p. 156, § 1, provides that any provision of Code Sections 44-14-1, 44-14-2, 44-14-4, 44-14-7 through 44-14-12, 44-14-100, and 44-14-160, and Arts. 2 and 3, Ch. 14, of this title which conflicts with T. 11 shall yield to and be superseded by T. 11. See Code Section 11-10-103.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Criminal statutes must be construed strictly. Waldroup v. State, 198 Ga. 144, 30 S.E.2d 896, answer conformed to, 71 Ga. App. 550, 31 S.E.2d 463 (1944).   What constitutes property covered by lien.    - Where one holds personal property under a conditional contract of purchase and sale, and where, by the terms of the purchase, the title to the property is retained by the vendor until the purchase price is paid, the property, under such facts, is covered by a "lien" within the meaning of the word as employed in O.C.G.A. § 44-14-8. Waldroup v. State, 198 Ga. 144, 30 S.E.2d 896, answer conformed to, 71 Ga. App. 550, 31 S.E.2d 463 (1944).   Variance between date alleged and proved.    - Though a day and year must be alleged in every indictment, time is not material, and a day different from the one laid may generally be proved, provided it is within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations. Nelson v. State, 51 Ga. App. 207, 180 S.E. 16 (1935).    Verdict under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-8 is not contrary to law and without evidence to support it merely because the crime was alleged to have been committed upon the date of the execution of the retention of title contract, while the proof showed that the offense was committed at a subsequent date prior to the filing of the accusation and within the period of the statute of limitations. Nelson v. State, 51 Ga. App. 207, 180 S.E. 16 (1935).   Fraud may be proved by wide range of circumstances.    - Where fraud is alleged, a wide range is given in proof of circumstances tending to establish it, it being generally a matter of secrecy, and it is often only by collecting together numerous circumstances that it can be brought to light and exposed. Nelson v. State, 51 Ga. App. 207, 180 S.E. 16 (1935).    Cited in Daniels v. State, 43 Ga. App. 779, 159 S.E. 903 (1931); Smith v. State, 124 Ga. App. 581, 184 S.E.2d 681 (1971).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Right of chattel mortgagee in respect of proceeds of sale of mortgaged property by mortgagor, 36 A.L.R. 1379.    Validity, construction, and application of criminal provisions of statute relating expressly to conditional or installment sales of personal property, 129 A.L.R. 1077.   Mortgagor's interference with property subject to order of foreclosure and sale as contempt of court, 54 A.L.R.3d 1242.