State v. Thorvildson

160 N.W. 247, 135 Minn. 98, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 509
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 8, 1916·No. Nos. 20,176—(5)·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appeal is from an order denying a new trial after a verdict finding appellant guilty of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law. The assignments of error challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. There were only two witnesses produced concerning the sale. The prosecuting witness, a private detective employed by the county attorney, and defendant. Assuming both to be interested witnesses, it was nevertheless for the jury to determine who was telling the [99] truth. That a witness is a detective and has been employed by the state to ascertain whether the liquor laws have been violated, does not justify the court in holding as a matter of law that his testimony is not worthy of credence. Some other points made in the brief, but not based on any assignment of error, need not be mentioned, for they are without merit.

Order affirmed.

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

State v. Thorvildson, 160 N.W. 247, 135 Minn. 98, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 509 (Mich. 1916).

160 N.W. 247 (State v. Thorvildson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
Hallen v. Montgomery Ward Co. Inc.
281 N.W. 291 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1938)
State v. Nickolay
239 N.W. 226 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)
State v. Boylan
197 N.W. 281 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)