DocketNumber: No. 5,133
Citation Numbers: 65 Mont. 90, 210 P. 605
Judges: Cooper, Farr, Galen, Holloway
Filed Date: 11/13/1922
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquors, and has appealed from the judgment and from an order denying him a new trial.
1. The statute under which this prosecution was had (Chap. 9, Laws of Extraordinary Session 1921) is attacked on the ground that it was enacted at an extraordinary session of the legislative assembly, and the subject matter was not included in the governor’s proclamation. The question was determined adversely to defendant’s contention in State v. Dishman, 64 Mont. 530, 210 Pac. 604.
2. The only other assignment raises the question of the suffi ciency of the evidence. The record discloses that on
While it must be conceded that there is not any direct evidence that defendant was actually engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor at the time he was arrested, the circumstances point so conclusively to his guilt that the jury were justified in returning the verdict upon which this judgment was entered.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
"Affirmed.