Case Name: STATE v. JOHN THORVILDSON
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1916-12-08
Citations: 135 Minn. 98
Docket Number: Nos. 20,176—(5)
Parties: STATE v. JOHN THORVILDSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
STATE v. JOHN THORVILDSON.
December 8, 1916.
Nos. 20,176—(5).
Intoxicating liquor — evidence sustains conviction.
The evidence sustains the verdict finding defendant guilty of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law.
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury for the crime of selling intoxicating liquor without a license, tried in the district court for Polk county before Watts, J., and a jury which found defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. Prom the order denying his motion for an order directing the dismissal of the action or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
E. A. Bronson and W. J. Rasmussen, for appellant.
Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, James E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, and G. A. Youngquist, County Attorney, for respondent.
Reported in 160 N. W. 247.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appeal is from an order denying a new trial after a verdict finding appellant guilty of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law. The assignments of error challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. There were only two witnesses produced concerning the sale. The prosecuting witness, a private detective employed by the county attorney, and defendant. Assuming both to be interested witnesses, it was nevertheless for the jury to determine who was telling the truth. That a witness is a detective and has been employed by the state to ascertain whether the liquor laws have been violated, does not justify the court in holding as a matter of law that his testimony is not worthy of credence. Some other points made in the brief, but not based on any assignment of error, need not be mentioned, for they are without merit.
Order affirmed.