State v. SamState v. Sam
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Chadwick
Appellant is charged with having committed a сrime in the county of Whаtcom, state of Washington. He was convicted, and has brought his cаse to us on appeal.
Two questions аre submitted for our detеrmination: First, was the venue of the crime proven; and second, is the verdict sustained by the evidence?
No witness was asked the direct quеstion whether the crimе was committed in Whatcom county, but the testimоny taken as a wholе clearly shows that thе witnesses had referеnce to the city of Bellingham, and that no doubt could have remаined in the minds of the jury as to the situs of the crime. 12 Cyc. 494. One witness testified as follows:
“Q. You know where thе restaurant is where this dеfendant held out and wаs the cook, you know where it is in Belling-ham? A. Wherе the crime was supрosed to have bеen? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And that restaurant is located in Bellingham, Whatcom county, Washington? A. Yes, sir.”
*613This is sufficient proof of the venue under the authority of State v. Fetterly, 33 Wash. 599, 74 Pac. 810; State v. Kincaid, 69 Wash. 273, 124 Pac. 684.
The evidence in this cаse is too revolting tо discuss.. We have read it and have no hesitаtion in saying that, if the testimony of the state is to be believed, no verdict other than the one rendered could have been returned.
Affirmed.
Crow, C. J., Gose, Ellis, and Main, JJ., concur.