Richardson v. State

• Decision Date: 14 December 1928
• Docket Number: No. 24782.,24782.
• Citation: 200 Ind. 420,164 N.E. 269
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

200 Ind. 420

164 N.E. 269

RICHARDSON

v.STATE.

No. 24782.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 14, 1928.

Appeal from Henry Circuit Court; J. R. Hinshaw, Judge.

Jess Richardson was convicted of violating Acts 1923, c. 34, § 1, and he appeals. Affirmed.A. R. Feemster, of Cambridge City, and W. O. Barnard, of New Castle, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WILLOUGHBY, J.

The appellant was convicted of a violation of section 1, c. 34, p. 108, Acts 1923, and he appeals. He claims that the court erred in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment, and says that the facts stated in the affidavit do not constitute a public offense under any law of the state of Indiana, and particularly under the act of March 1, 1923 (Acts 1923, p. 108).

[1][2] In Volderauer v. State, 195 Ind. 415, 143 N. E. 674, it was held that an affidavit charging the commission of a felony by transportation of liquor under Acts 1923, p. 108, c. 34, need not negative the proviso that such prohibition shall not affect the transportation of intoxicating liquor for such purposes or uses as are not prohibited by existing laws, and that the portions of the Acts of 1923, supra, which relate to the transportation of liquor in a vehicle without the consent of the owner, or when it is mortgaged property or in which there are firearms, may be regarded as surplusage, for it adds nothing to the felony of transportation of liquor in a vehicle. In that case the court says: “After prohibiting the transportation of such liquor in any wagon, buggy, automobile, water or air craft, or other vehicle, it then prohibits the transporting of such liquor in any such vehicle, without the consent of the owner, or when it is mortgaged property, or in which there are firearms or guns. These latter provisions add nothing to the statute, and make no change in the degree of the crime nor measure of punishment. They may be treated as surplusage, for the crime first defined must be charged and proven, to make one guilty of any of the latter provisions. It may be that, if the indictment or affidavit charges any of these latter elements, it would be necessary to prove the same, as being matters of description of the means used; but as to this we decide nothing.” The court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

[3] The appellant next contends that the court erred in admitting certain evidence procured by an invalid search warrant, said search warrant and affidavit upon which it was based being invalid because there was no attempt to describe the property to be searched in either of them. It was contended that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, because the evidence upon which it was found was procured by means of an invalid search warrant; but it appears from the record that the search warrant, which it is alleged was illegally issued, was issued for the purpose of searching the premises of one Omer Peele, and that his premises were searched, and the evidence complained of by appellant was procured by the search warrant issued to search the premises of said Peele, and was found upon his premises, and there is evidence tending to show that the...