Krstovich v. State, No. 23318.

• Docket Nº: No. 23318.
• Citation: 186 Ind. 556, 117 N.E. 209
• Case Date: October 04, 1917
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

186 Ind. 556
117 N.E. 209

KRSTOVICH
v.
STATE.

No. 23318.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 4, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County; John B. Peterson, Special Judge.

John Krstovich was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Reversed, with directions.

Sheehan & Lyddick, of Gary, for appellant. Ele Stansbury, Atty. Gen., and Dale F. Stansbury, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Elmer Hastings, of Washington, Ind., for the State.

LAIRY, J.

Appellant was charged and convicted in the Lake circuit court under section 8022d, Burns 1914. This statute is intended to protect the lives, the health, and the morals of children of tender years, and provides for several offenses in connection with the employment of children. Among other things, the section provides that no boy under the age of 16 years shall be employed or permitted to work in and about any saloon, concert hall, or any establishment where intoxicating liquors are manufactured, packed, wrapped, or bottled. The second count of the affidavit under which appellant was convicted charged that appellant on or about a day named was engaged in operating a saloon in Lake county, Ind., and that he unlawfully employed, allowed, and permitted three boys named in the affidavit and alleged to be under 16 years of age to work and be employed in and about said saloon. A reversal is asked on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.

[1] It is well settled that a judgment will not be reversed on the ground stated because of a mere conflict in the evidence. In order to justify a reversal on this ground there must be a total lack of evidence as to some fact material to guilt. The court will look only to the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party. Eaton v. State (1917) 115 N. E. 329;Wright v. Bertiaux (1903) 161 Ind. 124, 129, 66 N. E. 900. Appellant asserts that there is no evidence to show that the boys named were employed or permitted to work in and about a saloon within the meaning of the statute.

The evidence most favorable to the state shows that appellant operated a saloon in what was known as Turner Hall building in Gary. This entire building was leased by George M. Rapaich from the Centliver Brewing Company, and he subleased different parts of the building to the several occupants. The room in which appellant operated his saloon was in the front of the building on the first floor. Back of this is the hall known as Turner Hall, and between this hall and the room occupied by the...