Durham v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.