Ross v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Ross v. State

114 N.E. 90, 185 Ind. 598, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 73

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1916

DocketNo. 23,106

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 N.E. 90 (Ross 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

Ross v. State, 114 N.E. 90, 185 Ind. 598, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 73 (Ind. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Erwin, J.

— Appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of operating a “blind tiger” in the city of Indianapolis. Trial was had by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The only question presented by the assignment of .errors is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court.

We have examined all of the evidence in the case as shown by the bill of exceptions and are of the opinion, without setting out a synopsis of it, that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the court in finding appellant guilty as charged. A part of the evidence was testimony, given by the police officer who arrested appellant, that appellant said to him, in effect, after his arrest, that it was necessary for him (appellant) to do some business unlawfully for the reason that he could not make any money and confine himself to legitimate business. Other evidence was introduced during the progress of the trial which, independent of the item above referred to, was in the opinion of this court sufficient to authorize the court trying the case to infer that appellant had violated the statute under which he 'was being prosecuted. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 114 N. E. 90.

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

Erwin, J.

— Appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of operating a “blind tiger” in the city of Indianapolis. Trial was had by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The only question presented by the assignment of .errors is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court.

We have examined all of the evidence in the case as shown by the bill of exceptions and are of the opinion, without setting out a synopsis of it, that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the court in finding appellant guilty as charged. A part of the evidence was testimony, given by the police officer who arrested appellant, that appellant said to him, in effect, after his arrest, that it was necessary for him (appellant) to do some business unlawfully for the reason that he could not make any money and confine himself to legitimate business. Other evidence was introduced during the progress of the trial which, independent of the item above referred to, was in the opinion of this court sufficient to authorize the court trying the case to infer that appellant had violated the statute under which he 'was being prosecuted. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 114 N. E. 90.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.E. 90, 185 Ind. 598, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-state-ind-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack