Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

198 Ind. 314

153 N.E 477

Bronnenberg v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1926

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1926-10-15

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1953

5 state decisions

Relies on Banks v. State · Patton v. State · Summers v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ewbank, J.

¶1 Appellant was prosecuted on an affidavit charging that he unlawfully sold, bartered, exchanged, transported, furnished, gave away and otherwise disposed of intoxicating liquor, to wit, one-half pint of whisky to a person named. The verdict found him “guilty as charged in the affidavit, and that he be fined in the sum of $500 and imprisoned in the county jail for a period of six months.” The court overruled defendant’s motion for a venire facias de novo for the alleged reason that the verdict was so uncertain and defective that judgment thereon could not be rendered against him, and then rendered judgment that he “be and hereby is fined in the sum of $500, together with the costs of this action, and that he be imprisoned until discharged by law.”

¶2 The verdict was intelligible, and under §12347 Burns 1926, Acts 1919 p. 81, the law required that upon such a verdict and judgment, the defendant should be imprisoned at the Indiana State Farm. Banks v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 353, 355, 123 N. E. 691; Patton v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 632, 637, 135 N. E. 795; Summers v . State (1926), ante 241, 151 N. E. 615. The judgment is affirmed.

/198/ind/314 · .json · Public domain