
    
      400.
    
    Seckinger v. The State.
    Decided November 12,-1912.
    Conviction of living in a state of fornication; from-.city court of Valdosta — Judge Cranford. August 27, 1912.
    From the evidence it appeared, that in the house in which the accused — a white man — was residing, Malinda Solomon, an unmarried mulatto girl, between seventeen and eighteen years of age, employed as his cook and house servant, lived, with her two children, and there was no Other occupant of the house. She had been living on the premises about three years, first occupying an outhouse, where her first child was born, and then the kitchen, and finally a small shed-room at the back of the house, “known as the negro room of the hands on the place;” and in this shed-room she gave birth to a third child, which died. The accused occupied a room at the front of the house. He was unmarried and was about forty-five years of age. The children were “bright mulattoes,” and the mother also was “light.” The accused called her “Shoog,” and the children called him “Tobe.” Others called them by these names respectively. A physician, who on one occasion attended Malinda after the birth of a child, testified that the accused asked about her condition, and “paid her bill the same as the rest of the hands.” One of the witnesses testified that while he was talking with the accused, the children were playing around them, and the accused “put his hand on one of them m a friendly way and told him to run along into the yard.” Malinda testified; “He [the accused] has never had anything to do with me wrong.” In his statement to the jury he denied that he was guilty, and said that when his sister left him, he had no one to do his housework, and had to have some one, and did the best he could.
    
      W. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
    
      James M. Johnson, solicitor, contra.
   Hill, C. J.

The evidence in support of the verdict was entirely circumstantial, and, weighed most strongly against the accused, raised only a bare suspicion of his guilt, and was consistent with his innocence. The verdict was therefore unauthorized by law. Winkles v. State, 4 Ga. App. 559 (61 S. E. 1128) ; Thompson v. State, 5 Ga. App. 7 (62 S. E. 571); Moore v. State, 8 Ga. App. 113 (68 S. E. 616).

Judgment reversed.  