State v. Zuponcic
STATE v. JOHN ZUPONCIC
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Dibell, J.
The defendant was ponvicted of selling intoxicating liquor to one Tikkonen, at Aurora, in St. Louis County, and appeals.
St. Louis is dry. A sale there, with exceptions not material here, is in violation of the local option statute. Laws 1915, p. 24, c. 23. Tik-konen and his partner testified that the defendant sold the former whiskey. The defendant denied doing so. He was conducting a soft drinks establishment where it was claimed the sale was made. His testimony was corroborated by that of two or three witnesses. The jury could have *449 found that no sale was made. It chose to find that one was made. The determination of the fact was within its exclusive province and the evidence is quite sufficient to sustain its finding.
Order affirmed'.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.