State v. Wiedenfeld

The appellant contends:(1) That the court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty and on the ground that venue was not proven to be in Richland county;(2) That the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial after verdict on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and could not be sustained by the evidence.

*565The following facts are disclosed by the evidence: On and prior to May 2, 1936, defendant was employed by the Moor-man Manufacturing Company of- Quincy, Illinois, as a…