State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 15 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 4880.,4880.
• Citation: 34 S.W.2d 712
• Parties: STATE v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

34 S.W.2d 712

STATE v. JOHNSON.

No. 4880.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 15, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Phelps County; Ransom A. Breuer, Judge.

"Not to be officially reported."

Bifford Johnson was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

J. Ellis Walker, of Rolla, for the State.

BAILEY, J.

Defendant was convicted on an information charging him with possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment was fixed at thirty days in jail and a fine of $500.

Defendant, on his appeal to this court, has filed no brief. Looking to his motion for new trial, it contains six grounds upon which the court is alleged to have erred. Of these grounds, the second simply alleged error in giving instructions ; the third set up error in admission of evidence, without indicating what evidence was referred to ; and the fourth similarly found fault with the admission of evidence. None of these alleged grounds for new trial may be considered by this court because not set forth "in detail and with particularity," as required by law. Section 4079, Laws 1925, p. 198. State v. Standifer, 316 Mo. 49, 289 S. W. 856.

The first ground contained in the motion charges that the court erred in refusing defendant's offered instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. The demurrer was properly overruled. The testimony of the sheriff that he proceeded to defendant's place of business, armed with a search warrant, and there found about three gallons of whisky setting on the edge of a sink, where it could easily be tipped over, was sufficient to sustain the judgment. There was uncontradicted evidence that this liquor was intoxicating, and there was no question as to defendant being in possession. This point must be ruled against defendant. State v. Cook, 322 Mo. 1203, 18 S.W.(2d) 58; State v. White, 316 Mo. 210, 289 S. W. 953 ; State v. Mitchell (Mo. Sup.) 252 S. W. 383.

It is urged under point 5 that the court erred in permitting the witness Stacey to testify he had purchased liquor from defendant. This man was a government agent assisting the sheriff of Phelps county in uncovering violations of the liquor law. His testimony related to a purchase of intoxicating liquor and to defendant's possession thereof, which purchase occurred at the same time the sheriff of Phelps county made the arrest under which defendant was convicted. It was all a part of the same transaction, and we think entirely competent as a part...