Case ID: okla-crim_44/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVENPORT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOE SCHRAM v. STATE.
    No. A-6949.
    Opinion Filed September 28, 1929.
    Rehearing Denied October 19, 1929.
    (281 Pac. 157.)
    Ray & Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
    Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVENPORT, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of having in his possession one still, in violation of the statutes, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and be imprisoned in the county jail for 30 days. Motion for new trial was filed, considered, and overruled, and defendant duly excepted, and the case was appealed to this court.

The testimony on behalf of the state, in substance, shows the defendant was living in the county of Comanche, and engaged in fanning; he owned a school land lease on a tract of land belonging to the state upon which there was a house and other buildings; about 400 yards from this house the defendant was residing on a farm belonging to Dr. Hues; tbe officers went to defendant’s borne, and also to tbe bouse on the tract of land tbe defendant had leased from tbe state; there was grain in tbe bouse and tbe barn was full of bay; in tbe garage they found a still which looked like it bad been in use for some time, estimated to be a 300-gallon still; there were 12 barrels of mash and also some empty 5-gallon jugs. This is, in substance, tbe testimony of tbe state.

The defendant in bis own behalf testified:

“I did not know anything about the still being in tbe garage; tbe bay in the barn and the grain in tbe bouse belonged to me; I had not been up to tbe house for some time; tbe latter part of October previous to the finding of the still, mash and other property in tbe garage, I rented tbe bouse to a man by the name of Cliff Andrews; I had never been up to the bouse after Andrews moved in; I bad never seen Andrews driving to and from the house but had seen him walking around the bouse; be did not pay me any rent; Andrews was not at the bouse tbe day the officers found tbe still.”

Tbe defendant called his son and one other man, who testified to bis renting tbe bouse to this man Andrews; they had never been up to the bouse after they claim Andrews rented it until after tbe defendant in this case was arrested. Several neighbors of tbe defendant testified to bis previous good character.

It is contended! by the defendant that tbe court erred in overruling bis demurrer to tbe information. With this contention we cannot agree. A reading of. the information shows that it states facts sufficient to charge tbe defendant with tbe possession of a still in violation of the statute. The defendant in bis brief cites no authorities to sustain bis contention.

It is next urged by the defendant that the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the evidence and error in overruling his motion for a new trial. An examination of the record in this case shows a conflict in the testimony. This court has repeatedly held that, where there is any competent testimony to sustain the verdict of a jury, though it be conflicting, it would not disturb the verdict. The evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain the judgment. There are other errors assigned, but from a careful examination of the record they are without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and CHAPPELL, J., concur.