State v. Sannerud

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Sannerud

36 N.W. 447, 38 Minn. 229, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 359

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 14, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 36 N.W. 447 (State v. Sannerud) 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. Sannerud, 36 N.W. 447, 38 Minn. 229, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 359 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Defendant makes the same assignments of error as in State v. Peterson, ante, p. 143, with the additional one that the name of the licensee of the place specified in the indictment, where it appears that the defendant was engaged in selling liquors at the [230]*230date in question, as disclosed by tbe records of the comptroller, was not that of the defendant. His name, it appears, was Bernt' Sannerud, while the name entered was Bert Samrud. A clerical error of that kind might easily occur. But the resemblance was sufficiently clear, both in spelling and in sound, to warrant the reception of the evidence, in connection with the identification of the place and the defendant as the occupant. The evidence was properly received; and, in the absence of any countervailing proof, the verdict was warranted.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court.

Defendant makes the same assignments of error as in State v. Peterson, ante, p. 143, with the additional one that the name of the licensee of the place specified in the indictment, where it appears that the defendant was engaged in selling liquors at the [230]*230date in question, as disclosed by tbe records of the comptroller, was not that of the defendant. His name, it appears, was Bernt' Sannerud, while the name entered was Bert Samrud. A clerical error of that kind might easily occur. But the resemblance was sufficiently clear, both in spelling and in sound, to warrant the reception of the evidence, in connection with the identification of the place and the defendant as the occupant. The evidence was properly received; and, in the absence of any countervailing proof, the verdict was warranted.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.W. 447, 38 Minn. 229, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sannerud-minn-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack