State v. Morris

• Decision Date: 03 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 3201.,3201.
• Citation: 245 S.W. 587
• Parties: STATE v. MORRIS
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

245 S.W. 587

STATE v. MORRIS

No. 3201.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 3, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Taney County; Fred Stewart, Judge.

A. F. Morris was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Moore, Barret & Moore, of Ozark, and W. R. Adams, It. C. Ford, and D. F. McConkey, all of Forsyth, for appellant.

R. L. Gideon, Pros. Atty., of Forsyth, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

The defendant in this case was convicted in the circuit court of Taney county on a charge of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, to wit, one gallon of whisky for beverage purposes, without then and there having any legal authority to make the same. The case was tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict of conviction and an assessment of a fine of $100 and costs.

The only point briefed in this court by the defendant's attorney is the ground that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a conviction. Before proceeding to that we wish to state that we have examined the information, the instructions, and the judgment, and no error appears therein. Now, as to the question of insufficiency of evidence, we will state that the evidence of the state showed that the defendant had purchased a milk can and had taken it to a shop and had a faucet put in it. At the time this was done he stated he was having it made for the purpose of developing pictures. Some months later it is shown that in a hollow or ravine In Taney county a man and a boy were seen at a still where whisky was made and mash was found and the ordinary utensils and equipment which go to make up a moonshine whisky establishment. A witness, who admits his eyesight is defective, testified that he saw a man and a boy working at this still; that he did not know who they were at the time, but later on, the sheriff having gotten in communication with him, he pointed out the defendant and the boy at a picnic as being the two he had seen running this still. This evidence, we admit, was somewhat vague and would justify a jury in finding that there had not been sufficient identification. At the trial this same witness testified that he was not positive but in his judgment the defendant was the man whom he had seen in company with the boy running the still. When the still was raided by the sheriff it was found in charge of a boy by the name of Ford, and he corresponds with the boy testified to by the witness who saw the defendant and a...