Case ID: minn_146/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF DULUTH v. STEVE GERVAIS.
    
    May 28, 1920.
    No. 21,764.
    Appeal and error — review of rulings in reception of .evidence.
    On appeal from an order denying a new trial, the supreme court will not review rulings of the trial court on the reception of evidence when the record fails to show that the rulings were presented in the motion for a new trial rand passed on by the trial court. [Reporter.]
    Criminal law — maintaining an unlicensed drinking place.
    The evidence of guilt, while not strong, was sufficient to warrant defendant’s conviction of ¡running an unlicensed drinking place. [Reporter.]
    
      The district court for St. Louis county, Cant and Fesler, JJ., affirmed an order of the municipal court of Duluth convicting defendant of running an unlicensed drinking place. From an order denying bis motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      John H. Norton, for appellant.
    
      John E. Samuelson and George D. McCarthy, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 177 N. W. 763.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

In the municipal court of Duluth, defendant was convicted of running an unlicensed drinking place. He moved for a new trial. An order was made denying the motion, and he appealed to the district court of St. Louis county where the order of the municipal court was affirmed. He now appeals to this court.

The record does not. disclose the grounds upon which a new trial was asked in the municipal court. We cannot therefore review alleged errors in the reception of evidence, for It does not appear that the rulings were presented in the motion for a new trial on which the courts helow passed. The only assignment of error that we may now consider is whether the evidence warranted the conviction. The record has keen examined in the light of the contention made in defendant’s brief on this feature of the appeal. It must be admitted that the evidence of guilt is not very strong or persuasive, hut, considering the manner in which the beer was kept, the incredible story of defendant as to how his invited company forcibly took and consumed the beverage against his protest, his scant acquaintance with the alleged guests and the disreputable character of the woman among them, we think there was room for the finding made by the trial court, and that the district court did not error in sustaining the conviction.

Affirmed.