Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 14 October 1919 |
| Docket Number | 23,465 |
| Citation | 124 N.E. 489,188 Ind. 467 |
| Parties | Robinson v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Delaware Circuit Court; S.W. Haynes, Special Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against William Robinson. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
George W. Cromer and Harry Long, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and Dale F. Stansbury, for the state.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the Delaware Circuit Court of the offense defined by § 8351 Burns 1914, Acts 1907 p. 689 commonly known as the "Blind Tiger" Law. The indictment under which he was tried charged that he did unlawfully keep, run and operate a place where intoxicating liquors were then and there sold, bartered and given away in violation of law; and that he was found in the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors kept for the purpose of being sold, bartered or given away in violation of law.
On appeal four errors are assigned as cause for reversal, the fourth being that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. The fourth error will be considered first.
In support of his motion for a new trial appellant asserts that the court erred in refusing to give instruction No. 12 tendered by him, and also that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. Other questions are presented by this motion which need not be set out or considered.
The place in which the intoxicating liquors were kept and sold as shown by the evidence of the state, was located at 612 1/2 South Walnut street in Muncie, Indiana. The state's evidence shows that there were five rooms on the second floor of the building, to which access was gained by means of a stairway. About half way up the stairway was a door, with a glass panel, which was kept locked, but which was opened, in response to a bell, by an electric button pressed by a man standing at the head of the stairway. The state's evidence shows that defendant frequently admitted persons to the rooms; but the evidence also shows that others also answered the bell and gave admittance to persons. In the front room was a table where a game of poker was conducted and the evidence shows that those engaged in the game drank whisky and beer, for which they paid. It is shown that the defendant on one occasion brought in drinks and collected the money, but it is also shown that other players had also on occasions brought in drinks and collected the money. The evidence shows that the defendant frequently took part in the poker game and also banked the game, selling the chips and collecting the money, but it is also shown that other players sometimes banked the game. In the middle room was a bar and back of this room were two other rooms, in one of which was located a craps table, and in the other a dice game known as "hieronymous." There is evidence that liquor was sold in the barroom, and that it was drunk in the other back rooms. There is evidence that the defendant operated the hieronymous game, and that other persons also operated it at times. The evidence shows without dispute that the rooms in question were rented, during the time to which the evidence is directed, from the owner by a man named Wicks, and that he was generally in and about the place. There is no evidence to show that defendant owned any of the liquor sold, or any of the gambling apparatus located in the rooms, or that he had any interest in the proceeds derived from the operation of the place.
It thus appears that there was no direct evidence to show that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial