Tate v. State

78 N.W. 494, 58 Neb. 296, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 133
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 8, 1899
DocketNo. 10542
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 N.W. 494 (Tate v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tate v. State, 78 N.W. 494, 58 Neb. 296, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 133 (Neb. 1899).

Opinion

Irvine, C.

The plaintiff in error asks a reversal of a judgment whereby he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years for the offense of selling intoxicating liquor to an Indian [297]*297not a citizen. The chief reason advanced for reversal is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. The evidence has been examined and found ample to sustain the conviction.

. One instruction is criticised as not founded on any proof. There is some proof whereon to found it, and, moreover, it was not excepted to, nor is the giving of it assigned as error.

It is assigned as error that the court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant’s occupation. The evidence on the point was to the effect that he was employed in a house of prostitution. To some of this evidence there was no objection, but it was admissible, if for no other reason, because the witnesses for the state had sworn that the liquor had been procured through visiting the house referred to; that the defendant followed them from the •house and handed them the liquor a short distance away. To show that the defendant was connected with the establishment tended in some degree to aid the proof.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Rice v. Rehner
463 U.S. 713 (Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Mamlock
109 P. 47 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 N.W. 494, 58 Neb. 296, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-state-neb-1899.