State v. Thorvildson

Dec 8, 1916
Nos. 20,176—(5)
Reporters:
, ,
Per Curiam.

The appeal is from an order denying a new trial after a verdict finding ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍appellant guilty of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law. The assignments of error challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. There were only two witnesses ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍produced concerning the sale. The prosecuting witness, a private detective employed by the county attorney, and defendant. Assuming both to be interested witnesses, it was nevertheless for the jury ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍to determine who was telling the *99truth. That a witness is a detective and has been employed by the state to ascertain whether the liquor laws have been violated, does ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍not justify the court in holding as a matter of law that his testimony is not worthy of credence. Some other points made in the brief, but not based ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍on any assignment of error, need not be mentioned, for they are without merit.

Order affirmed.