13 S.E.2d 647 | Ga. | 1941
1. The act of August 15, 1903 (Ga. L. 1903, p. 90), is not violative of any constitutional provision referred to. Cases cited and distinguished. Request to overrule certain previous decisions is denied. *683
2. Pauper affidavit in lieu of cost payment in this court, held sufficient.
1. The act approved August 15, 1903 (Ga. L. 1903, p. 90), entitled, "An act to make it illegal for any person to procure money, or other thing of value, on a contract to perform services, with intent to defraud, and to fix the punishment therefor, and for other purposes," is not violative of the 13th amendment to the constitution of the United States (Code, § 1-813), or of article 1, section 1, paragraph 17, of the constitution of Georgia (Code, § 2-117), prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. Nor is the act violative of the provisions forbidding peonage, found in the United States Revised Statutes, §§ 1990, 5526 (8 U.S.C.A. 56), enacted to secure the enforcement of such amendment. Latson v.Wells,
2. The act approved August 15, 1903 (Ga. L. 1903, p. 90), is not violative of the due-process clause and the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States (Code, § 1-815), or of article 1, section 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the constitution of Georgia (Code, §§ 2-102, 2-103). See Vance v. State,
3. Nor is the said statute violative of article 1, section 1, paragraph 21, of the constitution of Georgia (Code, § 2-121), prohibiting imprisonment for debt. Lamar v. State,
4. It follows the court did not err in charging the jury in the terms of the statute, or in refusing defendant's request to charge that the statute was unconstitutional and void. *685
(a) The request to overrule Lamar v. State, Lamar v.Prosser, Banks v. State, Townsend v. State, Vance v.State, Latson v. Wells, and Wilson v. State, is denied.
(b) The decisions in Bailey v. Alabama,
5. In this case a copy of a pauper affidavit was transmitted with the record to the Supreme Court. The affidavit was as follows:
"State of Georgia v. Ira Taylor. Appeal from verdict of guilty to a misdemeanor. Superior Court Wilkinson County, Ga.
"Personally appeared before the undersigned Ira Taylor, defendant, who on oath says that he is unable to pay the costs, because of his poverty, in said case. Ira his mark Taylor (x).
"Sworn to and subscribed to before me this 23rd day of May, 1940. W. E. Boyer, N. P., Ex of. J. P."
Held: (a) It will be presumed from the recitals on the face of the affidavit that it was executed in a county in Georgia where the person before whom it was taken was a notary public and ex-officio justice of the peace authorized to administer the oath. Abrams v. State,
(b) In Abrams v. State, supra, the officer who administered the oath was an officer commissioned by the Governor, and was of the same character as the officer in the present case. In Dawson v. Dawson,
(c) The affidavit was sufficient to relieve the plaintiff in error or his attorney from the payment of costs in bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
6. In view of the fact that the defendant relies solely on constitutional grounds, it is unnecessary to rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. *686