State v. . Holly

PeR Curiam.

Tbe only question discussed in tbe brief of defendants’ counsel relates to the sufficiency of tbe evidence to convict of tbe crime created by tbe statute.

We agree with counsel tbat tbe mere employment of one who ■is under contract to serve another is not a violation of tbe statute. It must be shown that the defendant did something to entice, persuade or procure the servant to leave his master.

After a careful examination of the evidence a majority of the Court are of opinion that the evidence discloses some facts and circumstances tending to prove that these defendants induced, enticed and assisted Outlaw to leave his employer and enter into their service under conditions which make their conduct a violation of the statute, and that the court was warranted in submitting the question to the jury.

The judgment is

Affirmed.