neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
0.4 score
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
E. MARSHALL
v.
E. MARSHALL
No. 23,578.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan 25, 1924.
J. D. Greathouse, for appellant., Neil M. Cronin, City Attorney, and Liither W. Youngdahl, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was convicted of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors contrary to an ordinance of Minneapolis. The trial was to the court without a jury. The only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. We have examined it. There was evidence in proof of the defendant’s guilt, and evidence in disproof of it. A finding either way would be sustained and there is no profit in reviewing the testimony.
Judgment affirmed.