People v. Plummer
Michigan Supreme Court
Exceptions from Ingham; Wiest, J. Rosetta Plummer was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a county in which prohibition was in force.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). None of the exceptions can be sustained. In view of the positive testimony of sales of liquor to Hill and his companion, the admission that liquor was furnished to *419them, and the claim that it was a mere act of hospitality, it was material and pertinent to consider the testimony that during the same evening respondent furnished liquor to another male acquaintance and received pay for it, as affecting the credit to be given to her testimony. People v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523 (124 N. W. 546, 18 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 844); People v. Hancock, 166 Mich. 654 (132 N. W. 443).
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. GiddingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- People v. RiceMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- People v. EvertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- People v. HancockMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. McCreaMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
- People v. JonesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
- People v. MurnMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- People v. HarperMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972