Robinson v. State

Decision Date14 October 1919
Docket NumberNo. 23465.,23465.
Citation188 Ind. 467,124 N.E. 489
PartiesROBINSON v. STATE.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Delaware County; S. W. Haynes, Special Judge.

William Robinson was convicted of violating the “blind tiger” law, and he appeals. Reversed, with instructions to grant new trial.

George W. Cromer and Harry Long, both of Muncie, for appellant.

Ele Stansbury, of Indianapolis, and Dale F. Stansbury, of Covington, for the State.

LAIRY, C.J.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the Delaware circuit court of the offense defined by section 8351, Burns 1914, 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, Ind. 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 halfway 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 two other rooms, in one of which was located a crap 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hampton v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 2012
  • Kestler v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 6 Abril 1949
    ... ... natural relation of things, the question is one of law ... Lee v. State [1901], 156 Ind. 541, 60 N.E. 299; ... Wrassman v. State [1921], 191 Ind. 399, 132 N.E ... 673; Dunn v. State [1906], 166 Ind. 694, 78 N.E ... 198; Robinson v. State [1919], 188 Ind. 467, 124 ... N.E. 489; State v. Fisk [1908], 170 Ind. 166, 83 ... N.E. 995; Commonwealth v. Webster [1850], 5 Cush., Mass., ... 295, 52 Am.Dec. 711; State v. Furney [1889], 41 Kan ... 115, 21 P. 213, 13 Am.St.Rep. 262; People v. Willett ... [1895], 105 Mich ... ...
  • Ruetz v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 9 Marzo 1978
    ... ... State (1950), 228 Ind. 30, 89 N.E.2d 445; McAdams v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 403, 81 N.E.2d 671; Osbon v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 413, 13 N.E.2d 223; Gears v. State (1931), 203 Ind. 380, 180 N.E. 585; Wrassman v. State (1921), 191 Ind. 399, 132 N.E. 673; Robinson v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 467, 124 N.E. 489; Lee v. State (1901), 156 Ind. 541, 60 N.E. 299; Hamilton v. State (1895), 142 Ind. 276, 41 N.E. 588; Cavender v. State (1890), 126 Ind. 47, 25 N.E. 875. The language in some of the above cases contradicts the language in others. Some of these cases ... ...
  • Spears v. State, 179S13
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 1980
    ... ... State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 152.) However, this Court has never departed from the conviction that the above standard is a proper one to be employed at the trial court and a defendant is entitled to an instruction to that effect. Robinson v. State, (1919) 188 Ind. 467, 124 N.E. 489; Wantland v. State, (1896) 145 Ind. 38, 43 N.E. 931 ...         Originally this Court had to be satisfied on appeal that circumstantial evidence had to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. Cavender v. State, (1890) 126 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT