Coff v. State

• Decision Date: 07 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 23934.,23934.
• Citation: 133 N.E. 3,191 Ind. 416
• Parties: COFF v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

191 Ind. 416

133 N.E. 3

COFF

v.STATE.

No. 23934.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 7, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Wm. A. Bond, Judge.

James Coff was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Arthur C. Lindemuth, of Richmond, for appelant.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Mrs. Edward F. White, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

EWBANK, C. J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with the offense of “maintaining a common nuisance, by then and there keeping and maintaining certain rooms (describing them and their location) where divers persons were then and there permitted by him *** to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage,” etc. No question is presented as to the sufficiency of the affidavit under section 20 of the Prohibition Act (Burns' Supp. 1921, § 8356t; Acts 1917, c. 4, p. 25, § 20). The appellant entered a plea of “not guilty,” but was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, and to be imprisoned for 30 days. He filed a motion for a new trial for the alleged reason (among others) that the court erred in admitting certain evidence. The motion was overruled, and appellant excepted and has assigned the ruling as error. What purports to be a bill of exceptions containing the evidence fills more than 200 pages of the transcript, but the “Statement” in appellant's brief, as amended upon leave of court, does not set out a syllable of the evidence, nor even refer to what it was, except by reciting a specification in the motion for a new trial. In the “argument” in his brief, after stating it was error to permit the introduction of a designated kind of evidence, appellant asserts that “the court permitted five witnesses for the state so to testify, to wit,” and gives the names of five persons, with a reference to certain pages and lines after each name. Nothing more is stated in his brief concerning what any witness testified, but appellant asserts and relies upon the proposition that if evidence offered by the state was improperly admitted, a presumption arises that it must have been prejudicial to his rights.

The brief for the appellee states that without objection by appellant five witnesses testified directly to facts establishing appellant's guilt. We have examined the record, and find that witnesses did testify that the appellant kept a restaurant in the rooms named, and that many different persons came to the restaurant, and there bought soft drinks from appellant, and mixed intoxicating liquors with them and drank the mixture, in the presence of appellant and with his knowledge, for some weeks, until the chief of police interfered, and...