
    Heier v. State of Indiana.
    [No. 23,438.
    Filed March 25, 1919.]
    Criminal Law. — Sentence.—Place of Imprisonment.- — Objection. —A defendant, convicted of violating the “Blind Tiger” Act, should have presented the alleged error that he was sentenced to the county jail instead of the penal farm by a motion to modify the judgment and not by a motion for new trial.
    From Marion Criminal Court (48,042); James A. Collins, Judge.
    Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Fred Heier. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Roemler & Chamberlain, for appellant.
    
      Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, Elmer E. Hastings and Dale F. Stansbury, for the state.
   Townsend, J.

— Appellant was convicted of a violation of what is commonly known as the “Blind Tiger” Law and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and imprisoned in the county jail for thirty days.

It is his contention that he should have been sentenced to the penal farm. He attempts to present this question by a motion for a new trial.

An objection to place of imprisonment should have been presented by a motion to modify the judgment. Hunt v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 644, 117 N. E. 856.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 122 N. E. 578. See 97 Am. St. 371, 16 C. J. 1314.  