Thompson v. State

Thompson was convicted of a violation of the act of 1903 making criminal the obtaining of money or other thing of value upon a fraudulent promise to perform services. He made a motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and the judgment overruling the same is the error assigned. The evidence clearly shows the contract and the obtaining of the money by the accused. It is equally clear, from the State’s evidence, that the accused at the time he obtained the money from the prosecutor •on his promise to perform the service according to his contract did not have any criminal intention. A…