Slick v. State, 24475.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1926
• Docket Number: No. 24475.,24475.
• Citation: 150 N.E. 762,197 Ind. 550
• Parties: SLICK v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

197 Ind. 550

150 N.E. 762

SLICK

v.STATE.

No. 24475.^*

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 25, 1926.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Jas. A. Collins, Judge.

Henry Slick was convicted for violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. R. Cameron, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WILLOUGHBY, J.

The appellant was charged by indictment with a violation of the liquor law. The charging part of the indictment is as follows:

“That Henry Slick and Mary Slick, on or about the 27th day of May, 1923, at and in the county of Marion, and state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully manufacture, transport, sell, barter, exchange, give away, furnish, and otherwise dispose of intoxicating liquor to persons to the grand jury unknown. ***”

On a plea of not guilty, defendants were tried by the court without a jury. The defendant Mary Slick was acquitted, and appellant, Henry Slick, convicted, and the court fixed his punishment at a fine of $200 and costs and imprisonment on Indiana State Farm for a period of 60 days.

Appellant appeals from this judgment, and assigns as error that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. The reasons alleged in said motion for a new trial are: (1) The finding of the court is contrary to law. (2) The finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. No other question is presented under the assignment of errors.

The evidence shows that appellant was arrested on May 25, 1923, by a lieutenant of police at his home on rural route E at his farmhouse, and at the time of the arrest both defendants, Henry and Mary Slick, were together in their home. On a search by the officers, they found three five-gallon jugs of white mule whisky buried in the ground about 40 yards from the house, a quart bottle of white mule whisky upstairs in the house, three empty five-gallon jugs, and twelve pints of homemade beer and some wine. The officers testify that the wine was intoxicating; that it contained 16.43 per cent. of alcohol. The ground in which the white mule whisky was found buried was in an open space on vacant land in plowed ground.

The officer testified that Mrs. Slick said she had made the so-called wine containing a little of everything; that he dumped it out of the back door. A quart of white mule was found upstairs in the window of appellant's house. This testimony of the officer who made the arrest was disputed by defendants, Henry Slick and Mary Slick. The defendant Henry Slick said that the wine was just oranges and lemons, and that was about all you could make out of it; that it had been made only two days and had no yeast and no alcohol in it. But Jones testified that the so-called wine was in a large container, and that Mary Slick said she had made it, but did not know how long it had been made. Jones also testified that the beer was intoxicating. Jones testified that Mrs. Slick said she made the beer, twelve pints and it was homemade beer. Mrs. Slick denied this testimony, and said she did not say so.

It will be observed that the indictment in this case charges the unlawful manufacturing, transporting, selling, bartering, exchanging, giving away, furnishing, and otherwise disposing of intoxicating liquor. The evidence shows that Mr. Slick threw down a bottle said to contain intoxicating liquor and thus broke it. The appellee claims that the destruction thereof is prima facie evidence that the contents of the receptacle consisted of intoxicating liquor intended for unlawful sale.

[1] The state further claims that it...