Drury v. State

• Decision Date: 07 March 1929
• Docket Number: No. 25023.,25023.
• Citation: 200 Ind. 544,165 N.E. 321
• Parties: DRURY v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

200 Ind. 544

165 N.E. 321

DRURY

v.STATE.

No. 25023.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 7, 1929.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Jas. A. Collins, Judge.

Charles Drury was convicted of unlawfully selling and giving away intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Alvah J. Rucker and John N. Wright, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and George J. Muller, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

TRAVIS, J.

Appellant was found guilty on count 1, which charged the defendant with having unlawfully sold, given away, etc., intoxicating liquor to persons named therein, among other charges of violation of section 4, c. 4, Acts 1917, as amended by section 1, c. 23, Acts 1923. Judgment was rendered upon the finding. There were other counts in the affidavit. Assignments of error are predicated upon the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, for the causes that the finding is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law; and upon action of the court sustaining the state's objection to a question propounded to a witness for the state on cross-examination on behalf of appellant.

[1] The evidence most favorable to sustain the finding is that two men on February 19, 1925, at 5:05 p. m., drove up in front of appellant's grocery store and stopped, and that appellant came out to their automobile, which was a coupé, and one of the occupants stated that he wanted a small bottle. Appellant returned to his store and brought to the automobile a paper sack which contained a bottle and the occupant of the car gave him a dollar. At the time of this occurrence two police officers of the city of Indianapolis were making a search of a dwelling house which was the house next to appellant's dwelling house, which latter house was next to his store, and was about 100 feet away from the point where the automobile stopped. The officers saw appellant hand to the occupants of the car, while they were in the car, a paper sack, which contained, as one of the officers testified, something that looked like it might be a bottle. The occupants in the car drove away, and the police followed them in another car, and within a few blocks overtook them, and, just as they drew up alongside, one of the occupants of the car which the police were following threw a package out of the car down a slope of a bridge. One of the officers went down the slope and returned with a bottle, which he testified contained white mule whisky. The other thereafter went down the slope and returned with a paper sack. These two articles were introduced in evidence at the trial. The officers do not pretend to testify that the bottle found was the same bottle handed by appellant to the two occupants of the coupé. One...