¶1 Defendant appeals from a municipal court judgment convicting him of selling liquor without a license in violation of an ordinance of the city of Minneapolis. The evidence offered on behalf of the state overwhelmingly warranted a conviction. It was not contradicted. Defendant’s attempt to explain it away was so absurd and inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense that no credence could possibly be given to his story.
¶2 The judgment is affirmed.