
    Izazes v. State of Indiana.
    [No. 24,133.
    Filed May 18, 1923.]
    Intoxicating Liquor. — Sale.—Evidence.—Upon a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky, evidence of a witness, in answer to a question whether he bought whisky of . defendant, stating that he bought half a pint for two dollars and a half, was sufficient to sustain a finding that the liquor sold was whisky, and that it was intoxicating.
    From Marion Criminal Court (52,210); James A. Collins, Judge.
    Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Abraham Izazes for selling intoxicating liquor. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Claycombe, Givan & Stump and Clancy & Roller, for appellant.
    Z7. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
   Ewbank, J.

Appellant was convicted in the city court of Indianapolis, on an affidavit which charged that on May 14, the month in which he was tried, he unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky, etc., at Marion county, in the State of Indiana. On appeal to the criminal court he was again tried and convicted four months later. Overruling his motion for a new trial is the only error assigned, under which appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. The prosecuting witness answered questions without objection as follows: “Q. Did you ever buy any whisky from this defendant? A. I bought a half pint. Q. When was that? A. The seventh of May. Q. This year? A. Yes, this year. Q. State to the court what if any money you paid for it. A. Two dollars and a half. Q. This you have testified about occurred in Marion county, State of Indiana? A. It did.”

The form of some of these questions might have been open to objection, but no objections were made, and we think the testimony recited sustains the charge. There was other evidence that what was sold was “white mule,” and that defendant called it by that name when selling it. But the evidence quoted above sustains a finding that it was whisky, and that it was intoxicating. Hiatt v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 524, 527, 127 N. E. 277.

The judgment is affirmed.  