Norton v. State

• Decision Date: 21 January 1913
• Docket Number: 22,171
• Citation: Norton v. State, 100 N. E. 449, 181 Ind. 123 (Ind. 1913)
• Parties: Norton v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

100 N.E. 449

181 Ind. 123

Norton v. State of Indiana

No. 22,171

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 21, 1913

Rehearing Denied January 16, 1914.

From Wabash Circuit Court; A. H. Plummer, Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against John E. Norton. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Charles R. Haller and Murphy & Todd, for appellant.

Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr and James E. McCullough, for the State.

OPINION

Myers, C. J.

The sole question sought to be presented by this record is as to alleged error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Appellant was charged by affidavit in two counts, one charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and the other with keeping, running and operating a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, bartered or given away in violation of § 8351 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 689, and was convicted on the second count.

Several questions are sought to be presented: (1) The court erred in overruling appellant's objection to a question put to a witness as to how many times he had bought liquor in less quantity than one quart in appellant's place of business within the "last two years." The question was not answered, and the point was not presented in the motion for a new trial. (2) Error is alleged in overruling his objection to the question to a witness as to whether he had bought intoxicating liquor in appellant's place of business within the past two years. The point is sought on appeal to be raised that the question was objectionable on the ground of putting appellant in jeopardy a second time, which is the only question presented here. The objection in that particular was "for the reason that the evidence might disclose if the witness were further interrogated that the same transaction was the basis of an affidavit against defendant for which he entered a plea of guilty and paid a fine." That proceeding was in the Huntington Circuit Court, whence this cause had been venued to the Wabash Circuit Court. The latter court could not take judicial notice of the records of the former court, and if former jeopardy could be shown, it was a matter of defense so that this could not be harmful to appellant. (3) Error is claimed as to objection to the question as to whether the witness ever drank liquor in appellant's saloon, with another named person. There was no objection to the question...