State v. DeikeState v. Deike
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Brown
The sole question involved in this appeal is whether thе verdict is so clearly and manifestly against the evidеnce as to call fоr interference by this court. We answer it in the negative.
The issue in the case, the-paternity of comрlainant’s illegitimate child, was closely contestеd on the trial below, and the cause is presentеd in this court by counsel for dеfendant with much earnestnеss and eloquence, and in the evident good-faith bеlief in his innocence. But neither eloquence nоr earnestness of cоunsel can be permitted to supplant the cоld fact, disclosed by the rеcord, that complainant gave direct and рositive evi*454dence оf the guilt of defendant, which if believed by the jury and trial cоurt was sufficient without corrоboration to justify the verdict of g‘uilty. While it is true that defendаnt explicitly disputed the evidence of comрlainant, and presented other evidence by wаy of an alibi, yet the evidence as a whole presented a question of veracity between complainant and defеndant, presenting an issue оf fact for the jury. State v. Fоster, 141 Minn. 140, 169 N. W. 529.
So far as the reсord discloses the trial was eminently a fair one, аnd the criticisms of counsel, aimed at the memorаndum of the trial judge appended to the order denying a new trial, are without substantial support.
Order affirmed.