Case Name: Ellis v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1907-11-26
Citations: 169 Ind. 409
Docket Number: No. 21,048
Parties: Ellis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 409–409

Head Matter:
Ellis v. The State.
[No. 21,048.
Filed November 26, 1907.]
Intoxicating Liquors.— Sales to Minors.—Evidence.—Where the evidence shows that three boys entered defendant’s saloon and one of them purchased three glasses of beer, two of the boys testifying that the sale was made by the bartender whom they could not identify as the defendant, the third boy identifying the defendant as the vendor, and the defendant denying the sale, a judgment of conviction will not be disturbed on appeal.
Prom Adams Circuit Court; Richard K. Erwin, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Lafayette Ellis. Prom a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1393 Bums 1908, Acts 1907, p. 237, §2.
Affirmed.
Peterson & Moran, for appellant.
James Bingham, Attorney-General, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White and H. M. Dowling, for the State.

Opinion:
Hadley, J.
Appellant was found guilty of selling liquor to a minor. The only question he presents in this appeal is the correctness of his conviction. He insists that it was erroneous and contrary to law, because his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt by sufficient evidence. Three lads together went into appellant's saloon. They had not previously known appellant. They all testified that Egley bought three glasses of beer. Two testified that the beer was purchased of the bartender, but could not say whether appellant was or was not the bartender. The third testified positively that the defendant, whom he pointed out, was the man who sold the beer to Egley. The defendant himself denied the sale, and of ever seeing the boys, to his knowledge. The witnesses were all before the trial judge, and he had opportunity to observe their manner as witnesses. The body of the evidence convinced him of appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we cannot disturb the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.