Dryden

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway of this state at a time when defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

It is contended by appellant that the evidence of defendant’s guilt was insufficient to support the judgment. The witnesses for the prosecution, among whom were two policemen and a doctor, testified unqualifiedly that shortly after defendant had driven his automobile on a public highway he was intoxicated. Defendant himself testified that within twenty minutes next preceding his arrest he had taken two drinks of whisky. He also made certain incriminating admissions as to his condition at the time of his arrest, including the statement that he was in no condition to drive an automobile; and other witnesses gave testimony regarding acts and declarations on the part of defendant which were not consistent with normal, sober, conduct on his part—from all of which, notwithstanding other evidence in the case from which defendant’s sobriety on the occasion in question might possibly be deduced, it follows that appellant’s contention as to the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict…