
    11885.
    Lloyd v. The State.
    Decided December 15, 1920.
    Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Alma — Judge Luke. September 3, 1920.
    The accusation was based on the “labor-contract” law (Penal Code of 1910, §§ 715, 716), and charged in substance that Eichard Lloyd, with intent not to perform the service contracted for, procured from J. M. Harrington $2 by contracting to begin cutting wood for him on the following Monday or Tuesday for $2 per cord and to continue cutting until repayment of the $2 advanced, and that without sufficient cause he failed to perform the service or return the money. Harrington testified: “ I hired Eichard Lloyd to cut one cord of stove-wood for me on what is known as the Moye place, near Big Hurricane Creek, in Bacon county, Georgia, and he was to begin cutting the stove-wood on Monday or Tuesday following the date of the contract, this being on Saturday and in Bacon county. He was to cut the wood for $2 per cord, and he was to work continuously thereat until the amount of $2 was repaid in the cutting of the wood, and under this promise and representation on the 15th day of May, 1920, I gave him the $2, and he did not appear at all on Monday or Tuesday, as he promised, to cut the wood, and I did not see him until several weeks thereafter, and when I saw him I asked him why he did not appear and cut the wood as he promised, and he then told me his little brother was sick and he carried him to the hospital on Monday or Tuesday, this being the time he was to cut the wood for me; and he has never cut the wood or repaid the money with interest up until this date. Eichard Lloyd had cut wood for me before, and I paid him for the work he did for me. . . He told me that he wanted to borrow $2 from me, and he would cut me a cord of stove-wood on Monday or Tuesday if I would let him have the $2. . . He told me that the reason he did not cut the wood at the time he promised was because his brother was sick and he had to carry him to Waycross to the hospital. I do not know whether his brother was sick or not, and he may have been for all I know.” Another witness for the State testified that the defendant was apparently in good health and able to work when he got the $2 from Harrington and during the next week and several subsequent weeks; and on cross-examination the witness said: “ I know that his little brother was sick, and Kiehard told me that he had to carry him to the hospital at Waycross for treatment the week after the 15th day of May, 1920. ” There was no additional witness, and the defendant made no statement at the trial.
   Bloodworth, J.

1. “ This court, hy the constitutional amendment creating it, is limited in jurisdiction to the correction oí errors in law alone, and therefore has no power to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is strongly contrary to the weight of evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support it.” Collins v. Broom, 21 Ga. App. 420 (1) (94 S. E. 645), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., mid Luke, J., concur.

I. J. Bussell, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Penal Code (1910), §§ 715, 716; Ga. App. Reports, 13/10(2); Id. 586(1); 15/642; 16/216; 17/752; 18/700, 702.  