## Facts

- John Tennyson worked for H. D. Brinson as a sharecropper beginning in December 1913.
- Tennyson received a $2 advance from Brinson on a separate agreement to cut four cords of wood at $0.50 per cord on Brinson’s land, to be performed between July 20 and July 25, 1914.
- Tennyson did not cut the wood and did not expressly refund the $2.
- After receiving the advance, Tennyson continued working for Brinson as a sharecropper until October 1914.
- Brinson testified they had a physical altercation, that he beat Tennyson, and that Tennyson then left.
- Tennyson stated he left because Brinson beat him and told him to leave.
- Brinson testified Tennyson had turned over all his crop to Brinson; Brinson had not yet sold all of it and claimed Tennyson owed more than the crop would satisfy.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tennyson failed to perform (or refund the advance) “without good and sufficient cause,” as required for conviction under Penal Code § 716.
2. Whether the evidence proved that the person who advanced the money sustained an actual “loss” caused by the failure to perform, as required under § 716.

## Decision

- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
- The State did not affirmatively prove that Tennyson lacked “good and sufficient cause” for leaving and not completing the wood-cutting work.
- The State did not affirmatively prove actual loss to Brinson from the $2 advance, given the unresolved value and disposition of the crop turned over by Tennyson.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 716 (the Labor Contract Act), the State must prove each element of the offense, including (1) lack of “good and sufficient cause” for nonperformance or nonrefund and (2) resulting loss to the person who made the advance.
- Evidence that the employer beat the laborer and forced him to leave may supply “good and sufficient cause,” and the State must negate such justification to sustain a conviction.
- Proof of “loss” requires more than a general claim that the laborer owed money; where accounts remain unsettled and offsetting value may exist, loss is not established.
- A criminal conviction may not rest on mere nonperformance of a labor contract absent proof of the statute’s specific elements.

## Conclusion

The conviction for cheating and swindling based on an advance under the Labor Contract Act was reversed because the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Tennyson acted without good and sufficient cause or that the advance caused an actual loss to the employer.


Tennyson v. State, 16 Ga. App. 214, 84 S.E. 988 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)