Case ID: okla-crim_49/html/0260-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHAPPELL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES ZELLNER et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-7515.
    Opinion Filed Dec. 6, 1930.
    (293 Pac. 1115.)
    Marvin Shilling, for plaintiffs in error.
    The Attorney General, for the State.
   CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Carter county of the crime of unlawful possession of a still, and the punishment of the defendant Charles Zellner fixed by the jury at a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days, and the punishment of the defendant J. W. Bearden fixed by the jury at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

The evidence of the state was that the officers knew where this still was located, and went to it in the afternoon as it was getting dark; that the defendant Zellner’s 12 year old boy was firing the still and Zellner was sitting on the ground near it, beside his grown son; that when they saw the officers they fled over the bank and escaped; while the officers were emptying out the mash and tearing down the still, the defendant Bearden came to' the still.

Defendant Zellner, testifying for himself, admitted that he was at the still; that it belonged to his grown son, who bad escaped from tbe officers, and that be bad known for four or five days where tbe still was, but claimed be went there looking for bis 12 year old boy, who* bad no business fooling around tbe still; and that bis son told him that be and tbe defendant Bearden had put tbe still there. He admitted that be was sitting on tbe bank watching tbe still and that be ran when be saw tbe officers.

Fred Zellner, tbe 12 year old son of tbe defendant Charles Zellner, testified that bis brother’s wife sent him to take a lunch to- bis brother at tbe still, and that bis father came while be was there.

The defendant contends that this evidence is insufficient to support tbe verdict of the jury.

This contention is without merit. Tbe cause is therefore affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.