
    STATE v. E. MARSHALL.
    
    January 25, 1924.
    No. 23,578.
    Intoxicating liquor.
    Conviction for making intoxicating liquor, upon conflicting evidence, sustained. [Reporter.]
    Complaint in the municipal court of Minneapolis of violation of an ordinance of that city in manufacturing intoxicating liquor. Defendant was tried before Charles L. Smith, J., who when the state rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and found him guilty as charged. Prom the judgment of conviction and sentence to 45 days in the workhouse, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      J. D. Greathouse, for appellant.
    
      Neil M. Cronin, City Attorney, and Liither W. Youngdahl, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 196 N. W. 819.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors contrary to an ordinance of Minneapolis. The trial was to the court without a jury. The only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. We have examined it. There was evidence in proof of the defendant’s guilt, and evidence in disproof of it. A finding either way would be sustained and there is no profit in reviewing the testimony.

Judgment affirmed.  