Case ID: colo_99/html/0387-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Burke, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice Campbell,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 14,051.
    Ray v. The People.
    (62 P. [2d] 1168)
    Decided November 23, 1936.
    
      Mr. J. Emery Chilton, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. Byron G. Rogers, Attorney General, Mr. Walter F. Scherer, Assistant, for the people.
    
      In Department.
    
   Mr. Justice Burke, sitting for Mr. Chief Justice Campbell,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiee in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted on two counts of selling whiskey without a license and sentenced on each to thirty days in jail, sentences to run concurrently, and fined on each $250. To review that judgment he prosecutes this writ and asks that it be made a supersedeas. Tie assigns six errors. Of these the second is not again mentioned; the fourth is for the court’s refusal to grant a new trial; the fifth that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence; the sixth that the court erred in entering judgment. As we have repeatedly held the last three are no assignments. Buchanan v. Burgess, 99 Colo. 307, 62 P. (2d) 465.

1. The first assignment is for denying a motion for a change of venue based upon the alleged prejudice of the people of the county due to the fact that defendant had formerly been convicted there of a similar offense and had been engaged in an unpopular municipal incorporation activity. Such motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and we discern here no abuse. Andrews v. People, 33 Colo. 193, 79 Pac. 1031; Daugherty v. People, 78 Colo. 43, 239 Pac. 14.

2. The third assignment is that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence. This is a clear case of a verdict returned on conflicting testimony; the three persons who claimed to have made the purchases on the one side and defendant and his wife on the other. Under the well-settled rule we cannot disturb such a verdict.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Mr. Justice Butler and Mr. Justice Young concur.