Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 Ga. App. 419

Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 19, 1930

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1930-12-19

Relies on Phelps v. State · Morgan v. Morgan · Moore v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-12-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1982

17 state decisions

80193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Broyles, C. J.

¶11. Any father who wilfully and voluntarily abandons his child before it is born, and persists in the abandonment afterwards, leaving it in a dependent condition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Bull v. State, 80 Ga. 704 (6 S. E. 178) ; Moore v. State, 1 Ga. App. 502 (2) (57 S. E. 1016); Penal Code (1910), § 116; Daniels v. State, 8 Ga. App. 469 (69 S. E. 588).

¶22. In a prosecution against a father for the abandonment of his child, it is no valid defense to show' that the father was less than seventeen years of age when he married the mother of the child. The offense of abandonment is complete when the father wilfully and voluntarily separates from the child and fails to supply its necessities (Phelps v. State, 10 Ga. App. 41, 72 S. E. 524), and the only legal defense is to prove that' such separation never occurred, or that the father did not fail in -supplying the child with the necessities of life, such as food, shelter, clothing, etc. See also, in this connection, 35 Cyc. 1335, 1386, where it is stated:- “An infant may be guilty of seduction under - promise of marriage, if he has reached the age of puberty, although •his promise is not binding because of his infancy, and although he has not reached the age at which he can contract marriage.” The case of Morgan v. Morgan, 148 Ga. 625 (97 S. E. 675, 4 A. L. R. 925), cited in ■the brief of counsel for the' plaintiff in error, is distinguished by its particular facts from.this case.

¶33. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal .to grant a new trial was not error.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., eoneur.
/42/gaapp/419 · .json · Public domain