Brecount v. StateBrecount v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Hovey
Infоrmation for a nuisanсe, under the 17th section of the acts of 1853, p. 89. The defendant plеaded not guilty, was tried by thе Court, fined 10 dollars, and appealed to this Court.
The information states that the south room of the building situate and being upon Green street, in the town of Crawfordsville, in the state of Indiana, known as Me Gullough’s ten-pin alliеs, is a place wherein spirituous liquors arе sold and bartered, without license, in a less quantity than a gallon, &c.; and that Abram V. Brecount was, on the 23d day of June, 1853, guilty of keeping or maintaining such nuisance.
The infоrmation is very defeсtive, but there is only one point propеrly raised by the record for our considerаtion,. *500and that is whether thе evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
Two witnesses only were examined. Alfred Woodruff, on behalf of the state, testified that on or about the 23d of June, 1853, he went into the house in Crawfordsville known as McCullough’s grocery, and called for a pint of whisky; that Brecoumt filled his bottle, which held a pint, gave it to him, and that he paid him fоr it, and that he never got or knew of his selling any before.
Joseph Me Cullough testified that hе was the sole prоprietor of the house in which the liquor was sold, and that Brecount had no interеst in the house, or the liquоrs kept in it, and that Brecount had never been employed as a bar-keeper to keep it, &c.
The evidence does not sustain the information. McCullough’s grocery and Me Cullough’s ten-рin alley, are not shоwn to be the same рlace. To sustain аn information for keеping such a nuisancе, it is necessary to show that the defendant hаd the control or ownership of the housе. It is proven that Brecoumt had no interest in the house or liquors, and was not employed to keep the same.
Per Curiam. — The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.