Watson v. State

• Decision Date: 07 February 1928
• Parties: WATSON v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

195 Wis. 166

217 N.W. 653

WATSON

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 7, 1928.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Grant County; S. E. Smalley, Circuit Judge.

Asa Watson was convicted of possessing privately distilled intoxicating liquor, and he brings error. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Possession of privately distilled intoxicating liquor. Information in this case filed on the 21st day of February, 1927. Judgment was entered on March 2, 1927.

There were three counts in the information. The first count charged that Asa Watson, plaintiff in error, hereafter called the defendant, unlawfully had in his possession privately distilled intoxicating liquor on the 18th day of June, 1926. The second count charges the defendant with maintaining a public nuisance in the city of Platteville on the 18th day of June, 1926, but was abandoned on the trial. And the third count alleges that the defendant was found guilty in the circuit court for Grant county on October 30, 1925, of violating section 165.01, Wis. Stats. 1925. Said judgment was affirmed, and stands unreversed. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the information. The sentence of the court was that the defendant be punished by payment of a fine of $200 and costs; in default thereof, imprisonment at hard labor in the house of correction not exceeding two months; and that, in addition, the defendant be committed to the house of correction at hard labor for the term of three months, that term to begin after the fine and costs were paid, and, if the fine and costs were not paid, then two months from the date of sentence.Otto F. Christenson, of Lancaster, for plaintiff in error.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and R. M. Orchard, Dist. Atty., of Lancaster, for the State.

ROSENBERRY, J.

The errors assigned are: (1) The court erred in refusing to dismiss the action, for the reason that it was not sufficiently shown that the defendant had possession of the liquor or possession of the premises wherein it was found; (2) the court erred in refusing to dismiss the action, for the reason that it was not shown that the liquor introduced in evidence was privately distilled intoxicating liquor; (3) the court erred in admitting in evidence a certain exhibit because no proper foundation was laid therefor; (4) the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial because of the district attorney's improper comments on the fact that the defendant had not testified in his own behalf.

[1] On the day in question, the sheriff had a search warrant authorizing him to search the premises in question, which premises were alleged to be occupied by the defendant. The sheriff testified that he knew the defendant; that he had been in defendant's place of business many times; that he went on the premises on the 18th day of June, 1926; that said premises were occupied by the defendant; that the defendant was there that day; that he was sitting on a sofa out in front of the bar. This testimony was uncontradicted, and we think sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury. It is not necessary to...