Boyd 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.
Wade, O. J.
1. “In a prosecution under section 114 of the Penal Code of 1895 as amended by the act of 1907 (Acts of 1907, p. 57) [Pena] Code of 1910, § 116], the offense of abandoning one’s child and leaving it in a dependent condition is consummated and, in the legal sense, committed in the county where the state of the child’s dependency upon others begins on account of the withdrawal by the father of his presence and aid in the way of support.” Cleveland v. State, 7 Ga. App. 622 ( 67 S. E. 696 ).
(a) The facts in this case bring it distinctly under this ruling, and also under the ruling in Ware v. State, 7 Ga. App. 797 ( 68 S. E. 443 ). The evidence authorized the conviction of the defendant of the offense of abandoning his child and leaving it in a dependent condition.
2. There is no substantial merit in any of the special assignments of error, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Accusation of abandonment of child; from city court of Carroll-ton — Judge Beall. May 11, 1916. Boylcin & Robinson, for plaintiff in error. O. E. Roop, solicitor, contra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 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.