Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 24,181 |
| Citation | 139 N.E. 588,193 Ind. 355 |
| Parties | Hall v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Hancock Circuit Court; Jonas P. Walker, Judge.
Adrian Hall was charged by affidavit with a violation of the prohibition law. From a judgment of conviction he appeals.
Affirmed.
Arthur C. VanDuyn, for appellant.
U. S Lesh, Attorney-General, and Mrs. Edward Franklin White Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
OPINION
From a judgment upon a verdict of guilty of the charge of unlawfully possessing and keeping intoxicating liquor, to wit, two quarts of corn and rye whisky commonly known as "white mule," with intent to barter, exchange, give away, furnish and otherwise dispose of the same, etc., appellant appeals and claims error by the action of the court in overruling his motion for a new trial, because the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, and the verdict is contrary to law.
Appellant lived alone about forty rods back from the highway in a small dwelling or cabin, which was surrounded by weeds and brush, some growing corn and orchard trees, and had been so living there for a period of about two years. The premises so occupied did not belong to him. The day of the arrest the sheriff of the county, together with two other officers, went to appellant's residence about four o'clock in the afternoon for the purpose of searching the premises for intoxicating liquors and a still, under the authority of a search warrant. One of the officers informed the appellant of the purpose of the visit, and that they intended to search the premises, to which he objected and demanded to see the papers authorizing them to make the search, which papers were delivered to and read by him. The search was made and revealed a large tank in the cellar, together with several barrels, and also several five-gallon jugs, with a sack of corks. Several sacks of cracked corn were found on the first floor, and several sacks of rye meal were found in the front room upstairs.
As the officers were about to go to the second story of the house they found the stair door locked, and appellant told the officers that they could not go upstairs. Previous to this appellant had appeared with a revolver, and, preceding his statement with some oaths, said, that no one would be allowed to search these premises, and later said that nobody would be permitted to go to the basement or upstairs, and appellant had the gun with him upstairs and all the time he had followed the officers through the rooms of the house. In the conversation that followed appellant was persuaded to unlock the door, and the officers went upstairs and found the rye meal, a work bench, and several burners for oil or gasoline stoves, together...
To continue reading
Request your trial