Leach v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 22,037.,22,037. |
| Parties | LEACH v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
LEACH
v.
STATE.
No. 22,037.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 8, 1912.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; W. H. Bridwell, Judge.
George W. Leach was convicted of operating a place where intoxicating liquors were disposed of, and he appeals. Affirmed.
[97 N.E. 793]
Hunt & Gambill, for appellant. Thomas M. Honan, Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr, and James E. McCullough, for the State.
MONKS, J.
Appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of unlawfully keeping, running, and operating a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, bartered, and given away in violation of the laws of the state. Section 8351, Burns 1908. The errors assigned call in question the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion to quash the indictment and his motion for a new trial.
[1] When a motion to quash an indictment is overruled, it is settled in this state that, unless said motion states one or more of the grounds for quashing an indictment specified in the statute, no question as to the correctness of such ruling can be presented on appeal. Scott v. State, 96 N. E. 125;Hawks v. State, 96 N. E. 593;Gilmore v. State (No. 22,019 this term) 97 N. E. 422. The record does not show what ground, if any, was assigned to sustain the motion to quash the indictment. For this reason no question as to the correctness of the action of the court in overruling said motion is presented by the record.
[2][3] The first ground assigned for a new trial is that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for change of venue. Appellant filed an affidavit for a change of venue from Sullivan county on account of the “general excitement and prejudice against him among the inhabitants of said county.” Affidavits of certain citizens of said county were filed in support of appellant's motion for a change of venue. Counter affidavits of a number of citizens of said county that appellant could have a fair and impartial trial in said county were filed by the state. In all cases not punishable by death the granting of a motion for a change of venue on the ground of bias and prejudice existing in the county is within the discretion of the trial court (section 2078, Burns 1908), and, to warrant a reversal by this court on account of the refusal to grant a change of venue, it must affirmatively appear that this discretion has been abused. No abuse of discretion is shown in this case. Hinkle v. State, 174 Ind. 276, 278, 91 N. E. 1090, and cases cited; Conrad v. State, 144 Ind. 290, 294-297, 43 N. E. 221, and cases cited; Droneberger v. State, 112 Ind. 105, 106, 13 N. E. 259.
The mere fact that the affidavits in support of the application for change of venue were signed by a greater number of citizens than the counter affidavits did not require the court to grant the change of venue, or show an abuse of discretion in refusing to
[97 N.E. 794]
grant the same. Conrad v. State, supra, 144 Ind. 294-297, 43 N. E. 221.
The indictment against appellant contained two counts, the first charging the keeping of a place where intoxicating liquors were sold in violation of the statutes of this state; the second charging a sale of one pint of intoxicating liquor without a...
To continue reading
Request your trial