State v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 01 February 1946
• Docket Number: No. 34128.,34128.
• Citation: 21 N.W.2d 521,221 Minn. 224
• Parties: STATE v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

21 N.W.2d 521

221 Minn. 224

STATE v. WILSON et al.

No. 34128.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 1, 1946.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Minneapolis; Earl J. Lyons, Judge.

Ben Wilson was convicted of keeping a disorderly and ill-governed tippling house and the other defendants were convicted of being found in a tippling house, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

A. M. Cary, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

R. S. Wiggin, City Atty., and Leo P. McHale, Asst. City Atty., both of Minneapolis, for respondent.

PETERSON, Justice.

These appeals raise the single question whether the evidence in each case is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The defendant Wilson was convicted of keeping "a disorderly and ill-governed tippling house" in violation of an ordinance of the city of Minneapolis which, so far as it relates to the offense of keeping, is set forth in State v. Siporen, 215 Minn. 438, 10 N.W.2d 353. The other defendants were convicted of being found in a tippling house in violation of the same ordinance.

1. No provision of the ordinance defining a tippling house has been called to our attention. In State v. Siporen, supra, we held that a house where intoxicating liquor is illegally sold in small quantities to persons resorting thereto for the purpose of drinking it on the premises is a tippling house within the meaning of the ordinance. See, Calhoun v. Bell, 136 La. 149, 66 So. 761, Ann.Cas.1916D, 1165; 2 Wharton, Criminal Law, 11th Ed., § 1786, p. 1961, citing State v. McNamara, 69 Me. 133. Here, the evidence is in conflict, but it is such as to sustain findings that people resorted to defendant's house at all hours of the day and night; that intoxicating liquor was sold there at retail without a city liquor license and was consumed on the premises; that there was a waiter in attendance who took orders from persons there for drinks containing intoxicating liquor and then served them; that intoxicating liquor was kept by defendant in such large quantities as to suggest that it was being kept for purposes of sale rather than personal consumption; that a so-called "juke box" which could be operated by inserting a coin was kept to provide music to which the patrons danced; and that paraphernalia for playing a game known as "craps" was also kept for the use of the patrons. This condition of affairs was shown by witnesses, who visited the place on numerous occasions, to have existed over a period of several months. The defense was that the persons present were there as the keeper's guests and not as his patrons. The plain facts are that no invitation was ever extended to any of such persons by the defendant to be present as his guests and that all of them resorted to his house in the same manner as would the patrons of any other public place. We think that the evidence made it a question of fact whether the persons found in the place were patrons or guests. Our conclusion is that the evidence sustains the conviction. State v. Siporen, supra.

Cases like ...