Dudley v. State

• Decision Date: 04 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24597.,24597.
• Citation: 196 Ind. 329,146 N.E. 398
• Parties: DUDLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

196 Ind. 329

146 N.E. 398

DUDLEY

v.STATE.

No. 24597.^*

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 4, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grant County; J. Frank Charles, Judge.

Nove Dudley was convicted of keeping whisky with the intent to unlawfully sell, barter, exchange, give away, or otherwise dispose of it, and he appeals. Affirmed.Stricler & Messick and John A. Kersey, all of Marion, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen. (Cronk & Wilde, of Indianapolis, of counsel), for the State.

TRAVIS, C. J.

This is a prosecution for violation of section 4 of the act, known as the “Prohibition Law,” as amended, for keeping whisky with the intent to unlawfully sell, barter, exchange, give away, and otherwise dispose of the same. Acts 1921, p. 736; Burns' Supplement 1921, § 8356d. The cause of action was instituted in the city court of the city of Marion, and a trial had, which resulted in a finding of guilty and judgment, from which defendant appealed to the Grant circuit court, where a trial by a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty, and judgment imposing a fine of $150 and imprisonment at the Indiana state farm, from which judgment appellant appeals to this court. The error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, for the reason that the verdict is contrary to law.

The defendant, appellant herein, was by trade a glass-blower, who, because of a temporary closing of the industry, had for a short time been employed in a poolroom and soft drink saloon located in the basement of an hotel. Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening of the day the alleged offense was committed, two men entered the saloon and bought a soft drink, but asked defendant at the time, “Is this the strongest you got?” A few minutes later a police officer came in the saloon and found the defendant with the two men in an inclosure in the rear of the saloon, at which time defendant was holding a quart bottle of corn whisky, and one of the men was holding a drinking glass which contained some liquor which looked like whisky. The officer took the bottle of whisky from the defendant and reached for the drinking glass, but the man who held it dropped it to the floor, and it was broken. On their way to the police headquarters, after the officer had arrested defendant, the defendant told the officer that he was taking a chance and got caught. This narrative is the evidence of the police officer and appellant. Appellant testified to contradictory facts from which, if believed by the jury, an inference could be drawn that the two men with him in the rear of the saloon were offering him a drink of the whisky in the bottle.

Appellant's proposition, as stated in his brief, is that the verdict is contrary to law because it...