Vilscoff v. State

153 N.E. 802, 198 Ind. 412, 1926 Ind. LEXIS 148
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 4, 1926·No. No. 25,182.·Published

Opinion

Ewbank, J.

An indictment in five counts was filed in the city court at Indianapolis against appellant, the third of which charged him with unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor. On appeal to the criminal court, he was found guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and be imprisoned at the Indiana State Farm for a term of sixty days. A motion for a new trial for the alleged reasons that the finding was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law was overruled and he excepted. Overruling this motion is assigned as error.

We have examined the evidence and find that there was evidence which, if believed, sufficiently sustains the finding of guilty under the third count. Therefore no *413 error was committed in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. Powers v. State (1882), 87 Ind. 97, 103; Parks v. State (1902), 159 Ind. 211, 215, 64 N. E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190; Stucker v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 441, 443, 84 N. E. 971.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Vilscoff v. State, 153 N.E. 802, 198 Ind. 412, 1926 Ind. LEXIS 148 (Ind. 1926).

153 N.E. 802 (Vilscoff v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Powers v. State
87 Ind. 97 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Parks v. State
59 L.R.A. 190 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1902)
Stucker v. State
84 N.E. 971 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)