State v. Perkins, No. 39753.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: GRIMM
• Citation: 208 Iowa 1394,227 N.W. 417
• Decision Date: 12 November 1929
• Docket Number: No. 39753.
• Parties: STATE v. PERKINS.

208 Iowa 1394
227 N.W. 417

STATE
v.
PERKINS.

No. 39753.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 12, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; J. G. Patterson, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of bootlegging, and sentenced to three months in the county jail and to pay a fine of $300. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.

[227 N.W. 417]

John E. Lake, of Oskaloosa, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., and Blanchard W. Preston, Co. Atty., of Oskaloosa, for the State.

GRIMM, J.

The indictment charges that the defendant on or about the 23d day of December, 1927, in the county of Mahaska and state of Iowa, did keep and carry around on his person and in an automobile intoxicating liquors, with the intent and for the purpose of then and there selling and disposing of the same contrary to law. The record tends to show that in a garage in Oskaloosa on the evening of the 23d of December, 1927, two witnesses bargained with the defendant for the purchase from the defendant of a half can of alcohol. He refused to sell half a can, but contracted to sell and deliver the whole can for the agreed price of $18. He stated, however, he must go out in the country for it. One of the witnesses went along. The other waited in the garage. Each of the witnesses paid a portion of the purchase price, and the can of alcohol was delivered.

I. Sixteen errors relied upon for reversal are shown in the argument, but none of them comply strictly with the rules of this court. A sample are Nos. 6 and 13:

“The court erred in refusing to direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant on the defendant's motion made at the close of the case.”

“The court erred in giving to the jury Instruction No. 6.”

[1] It has been repeatedly held by this court that omnibus errors relied upon for reversal, in blanket form such as the foregoing, are not sufficient under the rules of this court to present anything for our consideration and determination. Among the numerous cases on the subject, we may cite the following: Blakely v. Cabelka (Iowa) 221 N. W. 451;Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa, 1253, 213 N. W. 218;State v. Briggs (Iowa) 222 N. W. 552;Harrington v. Southern Surety Co., 206 Iowa, 925, 221 N. W. 577.

Notwithstanding that under the rules there is nothing before us for consideration, we have carefully examined the entire record in this case, and the errors relied upon for reversal. Many of them pertain to alleged errors in sustaining objections made by the county attorney...