State v. Maas

There is no bill of exceptions presented on this appeal. We must assume that there was ample evidence to sustain the court’s finding of fact. Joachim v. Wisconsin Dental Clinic (1935), 219 Wis. 35, 261 N. W. 745; Joachim v. Madison Dental Clinic (1934), 216 Wis. 261, 257 N. W. 143. There was no effective objection to the complaint or information. Sec. 355.09, Stats.; State v. Grams (1942), 241 Wis. 493, 6 N. W. (2d) 191. . The charge against appellant is grounded on his acts which place upon him the responsibility for the violation of the law complained of. Whether he was an aider or abettor,…