Case ID: minn_142/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dibell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. JOHN ZUPONCIC.
    
    May 23, 1919.
    No. 21,279.
    Intoxicating liquor — sale in dry county.
    ' Tlie evidence sustains tlie finding of tlie jury that the defendant sold intoxicating liquor in a dry county.
    Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of St. Louis county charged with the crime of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, tried in the district court for that county before Hughes, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. From the order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      John E. Manihey, for appellant.
    
      Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, Jamos E. Marlchwm, Assistant Attorney General, Warren E. Greene, County Attorney and Edward L. Boyle, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 172 N. W. 693.
    
   Dibell, J.

The defendant was ponvicted of selling intoxicating liquor to one Tikkonen, at Aurora, in St. Louis County, and appeals.

St. Louis is dry. A sale there, with exceptions not material here, is in violation of the local option statute. Laws 1915, p. 24, c. 23. Tik-konen and his partner testified that the defendant sold the former whiskey. The defendant denied doing so. He was conducting a soft drinks establishment where it was claimed the sale was made. His testimony was corroborated by that of two or three witnesses. The jury could have found that no sale was made. It chose to find that one was made. The determination of the fact was within its exclusive province and the evidence is quite sufficient to sustain its finding.

Order affirmed'.