
    12947.
    WHITE v. THE STATE.
    Where a post-dated bank check was drawn at the instance of the payee and delivered to him by the drawer in payment for work which had been done by the payee, when the drawer had no funds in the bank and so stated to the payee at the time of delivering the cheek to him, but told the payee that he hoped to have such funds on maturity of the check, the drawer was not punishable under the banking law relating to the drawing and delivering of checks without sufficient funds for their payment (Ga. B. 1919, p. 220, sec. 34).
    Decided December 13, 1921.
    Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Miller county — Judge Geer. -September 24, 1921.
    
      N. L. Stapleton, for plaintiff in error.
   Luke, J.

White was convicted of a violation of the banking laws of the State, he having been accused of drawing and uttering a check on a bank without having sufficient funds in the bank to pay the check, and with intent to defraud the payee of the cheek. The evidence dearly shows that he was indebted to the payee for work upon an automobile, and that subsequently to the doing of the work, and in the month of June after the work had been done, and at the instance of the payee of the check, he drew said check upon a bank and the check was post-dated to August 15. At the time he drew the check, he stated to the payee that he had no funds in the bank at the time, but hoped to have such funds by the maturity of the check. Under this state of facts, we do not think that the evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction, and it was error to overrule his motion for a new trial. See Strickland v. State, ante, 772 (110 S. E. 39).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  