State v. Schroetter, 4719.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 4719.,4719. |
| Parties | STATE v. SCHROETTER. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barry County; Emery E. Smith, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Frank Schroetter was convicted of having possession of moonshine whisky, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Royle Ellis, of Cassville, for appellant.
John O. Sanders, of Cassville, for the State.
Defendant was prosecuted upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney charging him with possession of moonshine whisky. He was found guilty by a jury and his punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and imprisonment in the county jail for one year. No brief is filed by either party. A transcript of the record proper and bill of exceptions is here, and we have carefully examined all of it and have not found any reversible error in the trial of the case. The information is clearly valid. The evidence for the state came from deputy sheriffs who had searched the house of defendant and found a very small quantity of moonshine whisky in a jug in the house and also found the same kind of liquor on the window sill and on the side of the house under the window and a puddle of it on the ground showing that the liquor had been thrown out of the house through the window. The defendant and his wife denied that there was any intoxicating liquor in the house or on the premises, but the evidence for the state was ample to sustain the verdict. A motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained under it was filed and overruled, but neither the search warrant nor the evidence heard upon the hearing on the motion to quash is preserved in the bill of exceptions, and for that reason we cannot consider the motion to quash.
The instructions to the jury were free from error, and we find nothing in the record before us that would justify us in reversing the judgment.
The judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Humphries
...1 of the motion for new trial is too general to present an issue to the court. State v. Rosegrant, 338 Mo. 1153, 93 S.W.2d 961; State v. Schroetter, 30 S.W.2d 631; Sec. R. S. 1939; State v. McKeever, 339 Mo. 1066, 101 S.W.2d 22; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167. (4) Assignment No. 2 of the m......
-
Farm & Home S. & L. Assn. v. Howard et al.
... ... MARTIN L. HOWARD, RECEIVER, S.L. CANTLEY, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE, AND REPUBLIC STATE" BANK, RESPONDENT ... Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri ... July 29, 1930 ... \xC2" ... ...