Ellis v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Ellis v. State

82 N.E. 758, 169 Ind. 409, 1907 Ind. LEXIS 74

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1907

DocketNo. 21,048

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.E. 758 (Ellis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis v. State, 82 N.E. 758, 169 Ind. 409, 1907 Ind. LEXIS 74 (Ind. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Hadley, J.

Appellant was found guilty of selling liquor to a minor. The only question he presents in this appeal is the correctness of his conviction. He insists that it was erroneous and contrary to law, because his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt by sufficient evidence. Three lads together went into appellant’s saloon. They had not previously known appellant. They all testified that Egley bought three glasses of beer. Two testified that the beer was purchased of the bartender, but could not say whether appellant was or was not the bartender. The third testified positively that the defendant, whom he pointed out, was the man who sold the beer to Egley. The defendant himself denied the sale, and of ever seeing the boys, to his knowledge. The witnesses were all before the trial judge, and he had opportunity to observe their manner as witnesses. The body of the evidence convinced him of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we cannot disturb the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hadley, J.

Appellant was found guilty of selling liquor to a minor. The only question he presents in this appeal is the correctness of his conviction. He insists that it was erroneous and contrary to law, because his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt by sufficient evidence. Three lads together went into appellant’s saloon. They had not previously known appellant. They all testified that Egley bought three glasses of beer. Two testified that the beer was purchased of the bartender, but could not say whether appellant was or was not the bartender. The third testified positively that the defendant, whom he pointed out, was the man who sold the beer to Egley. The defendant himself denied the sale, and of ever seeing the boys, to his knowledge. The witnesses were all before the trial judge, and he had opportunity to observe their manner as witnesses. The body of the evidence convinced him of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we cannot disturb the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.E. 758, 169 Ind. 409, 1907 Ind. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-state-ind-1907.