Scharillo v. State

Citation207 Ind. 22,191 N.E. 76
Decision Date26 June 1934
Docket NumberNo. 26064.,26064.
PartiesSCHARILLO v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

207 Ind. 22
191 N.E. 76

SCHARILLO
v.
STATE.

No. 26064.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 26, 1934.


Appeal from Lake Circuit Court; E. Miles Norton, Judge.

Vito Scharillo was convicted upon an affidavit charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and maintaining a common nuisance, and he appeals.

Affirmed.


Thomas D. Galasini and Wildermuth & Force, all of Gary, for appellant.

James M. Ogden, Atty. Gen., and Merl M. Wall, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


TREANOR, Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon an affidavit in two counts. The first count charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the second charged appellant with maintaining a common nuisance as defined in section 2740, Burns' Ann. Ind. St. 1926, Acts 1925, c. 48, pp. 144, 154, § 24. The overruling of his motion for new trial is assigned as reversible error. The propositions presented thereunder on appeal are that the court erred in admitting certain exhibits in evidence and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict as to either count.

The exhibits objected to consisted of bills for soft drinks, for groceries, and for coal, a receipt for attorney's fees, and a radio payment book, all in appellant's name, which were found on the premises searched; also receipts for the delivery of carbonated drinks and supplies in the name of appellant, signed, according to his own testimony, by appellant.

Appellant contends that it was error “to admit these exhibits in evidence without other competent evidence to connect them with appellant.” However, the record fails to disclose an objection to the exhibits upon any such ground, and appellant cannot now, for the first time, urge their inadmissibility upon that ground.

The exhibits were introduced as tending to establish a connection between appellant and the operation of the premises which consisted of a restaurant, soft drink establishment, and fruit market. Three bottles of home-brew were found in the restaurant, and a large quantity of alcohol and wine was found in a barn in the rear. A quantity of whisky was found buried in the sand at the chicken house, to which a path led from the rear door of the restaurant. A shovel stood just outside the rear door of the restaurant, and the sand appeared to be wet and recently disturbed.

Appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, in that it does not connect appellant with the premises

[191 N.E. 77]

as owner or proprietor, except by inference, and that “there...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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