Opinion
No. 13,720.
Filed August 29, 1929.
APPEAL — Review — Sufficiency of Evidence — Verdict Contrary to Law. — Where the evidence is not set out in appellant's brief, an appellate tribunal cannot consider alleged errors that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and contrary to law.
From Rush Circuit Court; Will M. Sparks, Judge.
Sylvia Headlee was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
Albert C. Stevens, for appellant.
James M. Ogden, Attorney-General, and Merl M. Wall, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury in the Rush Circuit Court of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. He assigns as error that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the verdict is contrary to law.
Appellant certainly is not serious in this appeal. The evidence is not set out in his brief and we are unable to consider the alleged errors.
Fronczak v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 48, 149 N.E. 725.
Judgment affirmed.