State v. Arnold

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Arnold

215 N.W. 672, 172 Minn. 389, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1285

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 14, 1927

DocketNo. 26,175.

StatusPublished

This text of 215 N.W. 672 (State v. Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Arnold, 215 N.W. 672, 172 Minn. 389, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1285 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Dibell, J.

The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis of maintaining a liquor nuisance. He appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The claim is that intoxicating liquor was kept contrary to the provisions of an ordinance of Minneapolis. The only question is whether the evidence sustains the trial court’s finding of guilt.

The defendant conducted a hotel or rooming house in Minneapolis. The municipal officers made a raid and found moonshine in several of the rooms. The trial court was justified in finding that these rooms really were not used for lodging purposes but were rented by defendant to bootleggers as a place for storing their wares and from which to vend them. The evidence sustains the conviction;

Affirmed.

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

Dibell, J.

The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis of maintaining a liquor nuisance. He appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The claim is that intoxicating liquor was kept contrary to the provisions of an ordinance of Minneapolis. The only question is whether the evidence sustains the trial court’s finding of guilt.

The defendant conducted a hotel or rooming house in Minneapolis. The municipal officers made a raid and found moonshine in several of the rooms. The trial court was justified in finding that these rooms really were not used for lodging purposes but were rented by defendant to bootleggers as a place for storing their wares and from which to vend them. The evidence sustains the conviction;

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.W. 672, 172 Minn. 389, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arnold-minn-1927.