Dressel v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 21,638 |
| Parties | Dressel v. The State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Monroe Circuit Court; James B. Wilson, Judge.
Prosecution by The State of Indiana against John Dressel. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Henley & East and Robert G. Miller, for appellant.
James Bingham, Attorney-General, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White and W H. Thompson, for the State.
Appellant was found guilty of keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, bartered or given away, in violation of § 8351 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 689.
Numerous assignments of error are made, but the only one presented questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. It appears from the bill of exceptions, that in December, 1906, at Bloomington, Indiana, appellant established a wholesale liquor business, and continued to carry on said business to the time of the grievances alleged against him. Prior to December, 1908, he had for a number of years conducted a retail liquor business (a saloon) on the same premises, and with the same furniture and fixtures, but the screen, bar and other appurtenances thereto had been moved from the north to the south side of the room after the expiration of the retail license. On the day laid in the indictment, to wit, March 27, 1909, the sheriff and a posse with a search warrant raided appellant's premises, and found in an upstairs room a regularly equipped bar, that is to say, a sideboard against the south wall, supporting a mirror and partially filled bottles, a counter in front of the sideboard, at the west end of which was a cigar case containing broken boxes of cigars, at the east end an ice-box, within which, under the counter, were some bottled beer and pop in a bucket of water, also bottled whisky and wine, twenty-nine empty beer bottles, some whisky and beer glasses and a corkscrew. In a small cement storage room, connected with the building by an enclosed passage-way, two or three half barrels of whisky, four or five cases of beer, and a pump designed for taking whisky from the barrel, were found. In another room next to the barroom were a number of cases of empty beer bottles. When the upstairs barroom was entered by the posse, one Tucker, who had been in the employ of appellant four years as his assistant in the saloon and wholesaling business, was standing behind the cigar case, and two or three men were loitering in the room. In the adjoining room four or five men were seated at a table playing cards. There were poker chips on the table, and two beer bottles, each containing but a small quantity of beer. In the cement storehouse there were found tacked up over the door two internal revenue receipts, one acknowledging the payment of "$ 25 for special tax on business of Retail Liquor Dealer" for one year ending June, 1909, and another acknowledging the receipt of "$ 100 for special tax on the business of Wholesale Liquor Dealer" for one year ending June, 1909.
One witness testified, in substance, that he had recently, before the date fixed in the indictment, called up appellant's place of business by telephone and inquired of the person answering the call if he would deliver at witness's house a case of pint bottled beer, and was answered in the affirmative. In a few hours a case of beer of the kind ordered was delivered at his house. A few days later the witness called at appellant's place of business, and in the upstairs room described found Tucker standing behind the cigar case. There were four or five other men idling in the room. The witness announced to Tucker...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eaton v. State
...away as found by the jury. The case at bar is readily distinguishable from Givens v. State, 182 Ind. 561, 107 N. E. 78,Dressel v. State, 174 Ind. 752, 93 N. E. 211, and Kinsley v. State, 184 Ind. 396, 111 N. E. 418. For in the Givens Case it appears from the opinion that a well-regulated ba......
-
McDougal v. State
...should be deemed as decided adversely to appellant's contention by Rowan v. State (1912) 178 Ind. 663, 100 N. E. 9, and Dressel v. State, 174 Ind. 752, 93 N. E. 211, and cases cited. It will be noted that those cases deal with attempted defenses by appellants, who claimed to be licensed as ......
-
McDougal v. State
...came within the letter or spirit of the wholesale dealer proviso as each sold to consumers in less quantities than five gallons. The Dressel case further that in that case the evidence warranted a finding that appellant there was not a wholesaler but was merely using a Federal tax receipt a......
-
Eaton v. State
...in that case the method in use constituted a sale of the beer to the members by the club and within the prohibition of the statute. In the Dressel case it was shown that a in a dry county maintained a regular bar upstairs where intoxicating liquor was drunk and delivered in small quantities......