State v. Mamer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury for the crime of selling intoxicating liquor without a license, tried in the district court for Dakota county before Converse, J., and a jury and found guilty as charged in the indictment'. Erom the judgment sentencing him to imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
Defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license. The judgment was that he was guilty and be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for 60 days. There was no motion for .a new trial. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
Counsel for defendant in arguing for a reversal of the judgment, made these contentions: (1) The verdict is not sustained-by the evidence; (2) the court erred in its charge in the respect hereafter mentioned; (3) the sentence was one not authorized by statute. -
*2661. We have considered the evidence. It was conflicting, but amply sufficient in our…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Petcoff v. ReedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- State v. McGunnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- State v. RixonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- State v. PedersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- State v. McClainSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.