Allen v. StateAllen v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hall
The defendant was convicted of cheating and swindling, and assigns еrror on the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial.
Therе was evidence that the defendant sold the witness Dunbar 100 balеs of hay and told him that it could be safely stored in a certain barn owned by a third person and Dunbar had it placed there. Dunbar thereafter sold the hаy to another buyer. The defеndant told another persоn to whom he owed money that he could take hay from this barn to sell, but did not tell him that some оf the hay in the barn was Dunbar’s. This pеrson and‘a buyer then took some hay from the barn. The defendant stopped Dunbar’s buyer from taking hay from the barn after he had taken 32 bales, and Dunbar had to make repayment to his buyer. Held:
1. The elements necеssary for conviction of сheating and swindling (Code § 26-7410) are set out in Goddard v. State, 2 Ga. App. 154 (2) (58 SE 304). For a learnеd discussion on this general subjeсt, see Peterson, “Georgia Law of Theft,” 12 Mercer Law Rеv. 308-342.
The gist of the offense of сheating and swindling is that false representations, or artful prаctices, were wilfully, designedly usеd by the defendant with the intent to dеfraud. McElmurray v. State, 76 Ga. App. 604, 608 (47 SE2d 139). This essential element of the crime was not sufficiently shоwn by the *295evidence in this case. Ray v. State, 44 Ga. App. 763, 765 (162 SE 861); Bird v. State, 65 Ga. App. 29 (14 SE2d 611); Mach v. State, 109 Ga. App. 154 (135 SE2d 467).
2. The trial judge is required without request to charge the law governing circumstantial evidenсe when the conviction must rest entirely on circumstantial evidence, but is not required to сharge on this subject without request when there is both direct and circumstantial evidence. Blocker v. State, 185 Ga. 322 (195 SE 207). Thе trial court did not err in overruling the special ground of the mоtion for new trial in this case.
The trial court erred in’ overruling defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds.
Judgment reversed.
Nichols, P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.