Opinion
No. 14,051.
Decided November 23, 1936.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors without a license.
Affirmed. On Application for Supersedeas.
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Assignments of Error. Assignments of error that the trial court refused to grant a new trial, that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the court erred in entering judgment, are insufficient.
2. VENUE — Change — Court Discretion. A motion for change of venue based upon the alleged prejudice of the inhabitants due to defendant's previous record, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and no abuse appearing, its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on review.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Conflicting Evidence — Verdict. A verdict returned on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on review.
Error to the District Court of Weld County, Hon. Claude C. Coffin, Judge.
Mr. J. EMERY CHILTON, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. BYRON G. ROGERS, Attorney General, Mr. WALTER F. SCHERER, Assistant, for the people.
PLAINTIFF in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted on two counts of selling whiskey without a license and sentenced on each to thirty days in jail, sentences to run concurrently, and fined on each $250. To review that judgment he prosecutes this writ and asks that it be made a supersedeas. He assigns six errors. Of these the second is not again mentioned; the fourth is for the court's refusal to grant a new trial; the fifth that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence; the sixth that the court erred in entering judgment. As we have repeatedly held the last three are no assignments. Buchanan v. Burgess, 99 Colo. 307, 62 P.2d 465.
1. The first assignment is for denying a motion for a change of venue based upon the alleged prejudice of the people of the county due to the fact that defendant had formerly been convicted there of a similar offense and had been engaged in an unpopular municipal incorporation activity. Such motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and we discern here no abuse. Andrews v. People, 33 Colo. 193, 79 Pac. 1031; Daugherty v. People, 78 Colo. 43, 239 Pac. 14.
2. The third assignment is that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence. This is a clear case of a verdict returned on conflicting testimony; the three persons who claimed to have made the purchases on the one side and defendant and his wife on the other. Under the well-settled rule we cannot disturb such a verdict.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER and MR. JUSTICE YOUNG concur.