Moore v. State

<p>Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Eastman — Judge Griffin. November 14, 1910.</p> <p>Moore was convicted of a violation of the “labor-contract act” of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90). In his motion for a new trial, the refusal of which is assigned as error, he alleged that the verdict w,as contrary to law, evidence, etc.</p> <p>The contract upon which the accusation was based is in the following language: “$24.01. Eastman, Ga., June 23, 1909. August 15th after date I promise to pay to the order of A. P. Petway twenty four 07/100 dollars at Eastman, Ga., for value received, with interest from maturity at eight per cent, per annum until paid, the same to be computed from date, unless this note is paid at maturitj', with all cost of collection, including ten per cent, attorney’s fees on principal and interest in case of collection by suit or through an attorney; and to secure the payment of this note I hereby mortgage unto said payee, his heirs and his assigns, the following property, unincumbered, to wit:</p> <p>“This contract made and entered into this the 22 day of June, 1909, between A. P. Petway and C. C. Moore, witnesseth, that on August 15th said C. C. Moore, in consideration of the above $24.07, in hand paid, and receipt is hereby acknowledged, as advance' money for cotton picking, agrees to pick cotton for A. P. Petway at 50 cents per lOOib. seed cotton on place known as John Herrington place, where Henry Ingram now lives, 16th District, Dodge Co., Ga., until this obligation is fully released on December 1st, 1909. This contract to expire. And for the consideration aforesaid, I hereby, for myself and family, expressly waive ail homestead rights and exemptions which by the laws, State or Federal, are allowed to me and my family. I also waive the benefit of the exemption of my daily, weekly, or monthly wages or salary from garnishment, as against this obligation or any renewal of the same.” Signed and sealed by Moore.</p> <p>It was contended that the contract was not within the terms of the statute; that it was security for the payment of the note therein described; that no time was fixed for the beginning or termination of the labor, and that the advance was made on the note, and not on the contract.</p>