Anderson v. State

As to the general grounds, the evidence amply sustains the verdict. It was argued that the whisky could have been “planted.” The jury very well could have reasoned that anyone wishing to “plant” whisky would not have sown so abundantly for such a contemplated harvest; that a much smaller quantity would have produced the same yield. While it is true also that the defendant submitted his general reputation for good character, and those who knew him sustained him in this regard, a reputation for good character is a substantive fact and may within and of itself be sufficient to create in the…