« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH.
VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS. 341 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Plea of partial failure (C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to to perform should allege breach, with amount
Corporation and Its Members. of damages resulting therefrom.-Shaw v. Cit. On 318 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Common directors izens' Bank of Haynesville, La., 10 F.(20) 315. and managers occupy fiduciary relation toward
346(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Evidence of both corporations, and contracts between them breaches of oil-drilling contract inadmissible, will be carefully scrutinized.-Wentz v. Scott, where answer does not allege any damages 10 F.(20) 426. from such breaches.-Shaw v. Citizens' Bank of Cw318 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Want of good faith Haynesville, La., 10 F.(20) 315.
of interlocking directorates in execution of
long-time lease held not shown.-Caldwell v. CONVERSION.
Dean, 10 F.(20) 299.
Excessive rental, warranting cancellation of See Trover and Conversion.
lease negotiated by interlocking directorates,
held not established.-Id. CONVICTS.
Courts will closely scrutinize contracts be
tween corporations having interlocking directoOm2 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Attorney General of rates.--Id. United States held authorized to consent that
VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND LIABILI. one of United States convicts be taken into
TIES, state court for trial.-Marsino v. Higgins, 10 F.(20) 534.
(A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in
General. Production of convict of United States in court for trial wholly a matter for United On 379 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Corporation may be States, through its Attorney General, to de- member of mining partnership, in absence of termine.--Id.
statute.--Sturm v. Ulrich, 10 F.(20) 9. United States Attorney General's discretion to permit federal prisoner to be tried in state (B) Representation of Corporation by 0f
ficers and Agents. court must be fairly exercised.-Id. On5 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) One serving sentence 401 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Notes given by corof imprisonment for crime is not immune from poration to bank having same management do trial and punishment for another offense.- not place burden on holder, as in case of note Chapman v. Scott, 10 F.(20) 690.
of corporation made by president payable to
himself.-Wentz v. Scott, 10 F.(20) 426. CORPORATIONS.
(C) Property and Conveyances. See Banks and Banking; Carriers; Electricity; 443 (App.D.C.) Deed of corporation held
Gas; Joint-Stock Companies and Business executed in compliance with statute.-Eggles-
VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS.
Om559 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Appointment of I. INCORPORATION AND ORGANIZATION.
receiver for corporation held not to prevent ml (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) "Corporation” is legal corporation from suing or being sued.-U. S. entity, which can act only through agents. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Vicars, 10 F.(20) Bobe v. Lloyds, 10 F.(20) 730.
560(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Receiver of III. CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, DOMICILE, corporation held proper, but not necessary, BY-LAWS, AND RECORDS.
party to action against corporation.-U. S. Fi59 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Time of making en- delity & Guaranty Co. v. Vicars, 10 F.(20) 474. try in minute book not material, if entry faithfully shows what was done.—Caldwell v. Dean,
COSTS. 10 F.(20) 299.
VI. TAXATION. IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVIDENDS.
en 207 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Court will allow attor
ney's fees as prayed, where no counter testi(B) Subscription to Stock.
mony is presented and reasonableness of claim Our 76 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Subscription for cor
was not questioned.-Lothrop v. Spokane, P. & porate stock may be made in any way in which
S. Ry. Co., 10 F.(20) 225. other contracts may be made.-In re Hannevig, VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND ON 10 F.(20) 941.
NEW TRIAL OR MOTION THEREFOR. Cm78 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Subscription for stock implies promise to pay for it.-In re Hannevig, lowed in employee's action for injuries from
222 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Interest properly al10 F.(2d) 941. Cm90(1)
date of filing of complaint.-Miles y. Lavender, stock subscribed for is no defense to action on
10 F.(20) 450.
Can 263 (U.S.C.C.A.T3x.) Imposition of maxsubscription for stock.-In re Hannevig, 10 F.
imum damages for frivolous and dilatory appeal (20) 941.
held warranted.-Robertson v. Wilkinson, 10 (D) Transfer of Shares.
F.(20) 311. Om 120 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Written guaranty of value of corporate stock held absolute obligation
COURT RULES CITED. to make good the stated value.-Griffin v. Equity rule 37.-10 F.(20) 512. Thompson, 10 F.(2d) 127.
COURTS. V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.
See Clerks of Courts; Criminal Law, Om97(B) Meetings.
105; Removal of Causes, 198 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Common stock voting trust agreement for protection of bond and
II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND
PROCEDURE IN GENERAL. preferred stockholders held valid.-Mackin v. Nicollet Hotel, 10 F.(20) 375.
Decision, Adjudications, Voting trust agreement held not affected by,
Opinions, and Records. nor violative of, state law limiting time for vot- ww96(1) (U.S.C.C.A.China) Whether United ing proxies.-Id.
States Court for China obtained jurisdiction of
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
10 F.(20) 222. Cm96(i) (U.S.D.C.R.1.) In removal proceed- 323 (U.S.D.C.La.) Evidence held to show ing, due effect must be given to indictment, and plaintiff not real party in interest.--Golden v. St. to decisions upholding its sufficiency.-Steeves Bernard Trappers' Ass'n, 10 F.(20) 220. v. Rodman, 10 F.(20) 212.
C324 (U.S.D.C.La.) Motion held to present -99 (2) '(U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Order of judge issue under Judicial Code as to diversity of denying motion to dismiss complaint became citizenship.-Golden v. St. Bernard Trappers' law of case and should be so treated by any oth- Ass'n, 10 F.(20) 220. er judge sitting in same case in that court. Commercial Union of America v. Anglo-South (D) Jurisdiction Dependent on Amount or American Bank, 10 F.(20) 937.
Value in Controversy.
m328(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Jurisdiction of fed(A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General. eral court determined by amount claimed in pe
tition.-Nathan v. Rock Springs Distilling Co., 260 (U.S.D.C.La.) That complainant is un. 10 F.(20) 268. able to secure benefits of state court decree held Cw328(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Claimed attorney's no ground for federal court assuming jurisdic- fee considered in determining whether amount tion. - Venice Hunting & Trapping Co. v. Salino- involved sufficient to sustain original jurisdicvich, 10 F.(2d) 222.
tion of federal court.-Nathan v. Rock Springs 250 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Jurisdiction of fed- Distilling Co., 10 F.(20) 268. eral courts depends on subject-matter or diversity of citizenship.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & (E) Procedure, and Adoption of Practice Co., 10 F.(20) 368.
of State Courts. Oms262(3) (Ú.S.D.C.Iowa) Federal court can
343 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Whether resident was not perpetuate and administer charity located improperly joined as defendant, as affecting rein state.--Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 moval to federal court, determined by state law. F.(20) 542.
-Burrichter v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 10 cm 264 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Scope of ancilla- F.(20) 165. ry jurisdiction of court having charge of re
Em 347 (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Intervening petition, ceivership stated.-International-Great North
not recognizing propriety of main proceeding, ern R. Co. v. Binford, 10 F.(20) 496, followed dismissed.-Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 in Same v. Edgeley, 10 F.(20) 501.
3514/2 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Finding of want of (B) Jurisdiction Dependent on Nature of
fraud asserted as basis of defendants' liability C282(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Federal District dismissal.-Walker Grain Co. v. Southwestern
in a jurisdictional amount held not to necessitate Court has jurisdiction of suit to enjoin reloca - Telegraph & Telephone Co., 10 F.(20) 272. tion of highway under bill charging unconstitutional use of power of eminent domain faith as grounds for court's jurisdiction does
Want of support for claim asserted in good (Const. Ohio, art. 1, $ 19; Const. U. S. Amends.
not require dismissal.-Id. 5, 14; Judicial Code, $ 265 (Comp. St. $ 1242]). -Weaver v. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light
(F) State Laws as Rules of Decision. Co., 10 F.(20) 759. Em284 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Practice of shipown- Em363 (U.S.D.C.Neb.) In determining validers' association Weld not violative of statute rel- ity of federal tax on interest of surviving spouse, ative to seamen's shipping contract, so as to give law of particular state determines nature of infederal courts jurisdiction.-Anderson y. Ship- terest taxed.-Munroe v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 230. owners' Ass'n of Pacific Coast, 10 F.(20) 96.
Omw 365 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) United States CirEm 289 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Practice of shipown- cuit Court of Appeals required to follow state ers' association held not violation of commerce
cases on matter in controversy, in absence of or anti-trust statutes, so as to give federal state statute.-In re Durel, 10 F.(20) H8. courts jurisdiction.-Anderson v. Shipowners' mw 366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Construction of Ass'n of Pacific Coast, 10 F.(20) 96.
state statute by state Supreme Court is controlm292 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Federal courts can- ling in federal court.- First State Bank of not consider charges of unfair competition in Crook, Colo., Y. Fox, 10 F.(20) 116. suit between citizens of same state. -Hunyadi Pm366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Construction of Janos Corporation v. Stoeger, 10 F.(20) 26.
local statute by state court of last resort sub Federal courts cannot enforce common-law silentio is conclusive on Circuit Court of Aptrade-mark rights between citizens of same
peals.-Irving Nat. Bank v. Law, 10 F.(20)721. state.-Id.
cm366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Construction plac294 (U. S. D. C. S. C.) Action to establish ed on statute by state Supreme Court is bindpreferred claim against insolvent national bank ing on federal courts.-Pacific States Lumber held within original jurisdiction of federal Disc Co. v. Bargar, 10 F.(20) 335. trict Court, despite amount involved.-Stude. En 366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Federal courts, baker Corporation of America v. First Nat. in construing state statute, are bound by conBank, 10 F.(20) 590.
struction placed thereon by Supreme Court of Presence of banks as parties defendant in
state involved.---National Liberty Ins. Co. of action against receiver of one of them, a na
America v. Milligan, 10 F.(20) 483. tional bank, held not to affect jurisdiction or C 366(19) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Bankruptcy exright of removal to federal courts.-Id.
emptions depend on and are same as those al
lowed by governing state statutes, (C) Jurisdiction Dependent on Citizen- strued by highest state court.- Vought ship, Residence. or Character
Kanne, 10 F.(20) 747. of Parties.
C-m366(19) (U.S.D.C.La.) Federal courts Emo 300 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Jurisdiction of fed- rule follow state courts on question of homeeral courts, based on diversity of citizenship, is stead rights.-In re Levan, 10 F.(20) 240. entirely statutory.-McCaffrey v. Wilson & Co., Cw370 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) If there be no con10 F.(20) 368.
trolling state decision construing state exempCm 302 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) District Court has ju- tion statutes, federal courts construe such risdiction of suit for war insurance against the statutes.--Vought v. Kanne, 10 F.(20) 747. United States.-Allen v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 807. 371 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) When cause of C314 (U.S.D.C.La.) Suit by corporation, or- action for death is asserted in admiralty court, ganized solely to create diversity of citizenship it is subject to defenses available under juris
prudence of state whose statute gives right of 1. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME action.--Truelson v. Whitney & Bodden Ship
AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL. ping Co., 10 F.(20) 412.
13 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Statute regulating sale Cw371 (6) (U.S.D.C.Neb.) In determining va- of illuminating oil held not void for uncertainty lidity of federal tax on interest of surviving as to test.-Gulf Refining Co. of Louisiana v. spouse, law of particular state determines na Jinright, 10 F.(20) 306. ture of interest taxed.-Munroe v. U. S., 10 F. 26 (U.S.C.C.A. Mich.) Mere intent to vio(20) 230.
late law, not followed by actual violation, is not
a crime.-Sherman v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 17. (H) Circuit Courts of Appeals.
ww37 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) That accused, suspect. On 405 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Construction of ed of unlawfully dealing in narcotics, was afHawaiian statute by Supreme Court of Hawaii forded opportunity to prove fact, held not enwill not be disturbed by Circuit Court of Ap- trapment.-Perez v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 352. peals, unless clearly wrong.-U. . Fidelity & C37 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Government officers Guaranty Co. v. Vicars, 10 F.(20) 474.
cannot induce otherwise innocent persons to 406 (1) (U.S.C.C.A. Hawaii) Finding by Su- commit crime, with a view to having them prospreme Court of Hawaii
, sustained by evidence, ecuted.-Weiderman v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 715. is conclusive on Circuit Court of Appeals.- Defendant was not entrapped if, in due course U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Vicars, 10 of business of selling intoxicating liquor, he F.(20) 474.
made sales to government officers.-Id. C406(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) On writ of error, 38 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) One cannot
escape Circuit Court of Appeals will not weigh evi- criminal responsibility by contract to obey ordence, or decide issues of fact.-Grissom v. ders of a wrongdoer.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) Sternberger, 10 F.(20) 764.
III. PARTIES TO OFFENSES. (J) District Courts.
On 59(5) (U. S. C. C. A. III.) Actual presence ww426 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) District Court, sitting when crime is committed not essential to guilt as court of claims, has jurisdiction of action to of aiding and abetting.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 recover invalid penalty from United States.-- F.(20) 401. Sultzbach Clothing Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 363. Em 69 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Accessories before the
fact are principals.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F.(20) (M) Court of Claims.
IV. JURISDICTION. 460 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Amendment referring to sections of different statute with reference to
97(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Conspiracy trial section not described held to incorporate sec
may be held in Texas, where overt acts were tion referred to.-Allen v. U. S., 10 F.(20) committed therein, although some defendants 807.
remained in another state.-Chapman v. U. S.,
10 F.(2d) 124. VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING ww98 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Presence of defendant JURISDICTION, AND COMITY.
held sufficient to vest District Court with ju(A) Conrts of Same State, and Transfer risdiction.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 339. of Causes.
99 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Fugitive from juswww481 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Judges of
tice, removed from one federal district to annate jurisdiction, sitting in same court and
other, held properly tried for offenses other case, should not overrule decisions of each oth
than that for which removal was had.-Cardier.-Commercial Union of America v. Anglo
gan v. Biddle, 10 F.(20) 444. South American Bank, 10 F.(20) 937.
99 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Courts of criminal ju
risdiction need not inquire how prisoner came (B) State Courts and United States within reach of their mandates.-Chapman v. Courts.
Scott, 10 F.(20) 156. Cm 489(1) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Public utility, claim
Cm 100(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Federal prisoner, ing order of Public Service Commission was con
transferred to state prison, held subject to fiscatory, held entitled to resort to federal courts
state court's jurisdiction, and to punishment at once.--Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Pub
for crime committed in state, irrespective of lic Service Commission of Missouri, 10 F.(20)
commutation of federal sentence.-Chapman v. 252.
Scott, 10 F.(20) 690. Em 497 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Court first acquiring fra 105 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Failure to challenge jurisdiction over res will hold it to exclusion of
jurisdiction of person on appearance is equivaother court.-Mace v. Mayfield, 10 F.(20) 231.
lent to consent.-Chapman v. Scott, 10 F.(20)
156. Application of rule that court first acquiring
V. VENUE. jurisdiction of res retains it stated.-Id. Om500 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Claims held not to (A) Place of Bringing Prosecution. arise under receivership, so as to exclude ju- 113 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.). Prosecution mainrisdiction of state court.-International-Great tained either where conspiracy was formed or Northern R. Co. v. Binford, 10 F.(2d) 496, fol- where one or more of overt acts took place.lowed in Same v. Edgeley, 10 F.(20) 501. Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 339.
508 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Bills to enjoin railroad's appropriation of land insufficient to
VII. FORMER JEOPARDY. justify equitable intervention of federal court.- w 196 (App.D.C.) Showing necessary to supNational Quarries Co. v. Detroit, T. & I. R. Co.,
port plea of former jeopardy stated.-Monroe 10 F.(20) 139.
v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 645. Not presumed that state court would deny
mw202 (1) (App.D.C.) Plea of former acquitcomplainant his constitutional rights, federal or tal held unsustained.-Monroe v. U. S., 10 F. state.--Id.
(2) 645. Bill intended to enjoin prosecution of suit in state court contrary to statute.-Id.
VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AFFI
DAVIT, WARRANT. EXAMINATION,
COMMITMENT, AND SUMMARY CRIMINAL LAW.
TRIAL. See Bail, ww 42-59; Conspiracy, w 23-47; ww242(1) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Proceeding for reEscape;
Extradition; Fines; Forgery; moval judicial, not ministerial, and only judge Grand Jury; Indictment and Information; can remove.-U. S. v. Andrade, 10 F.(20) 572. Obstructing Justice; Pardon; Prostitution; Fww242(4) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Indictment substanReceiving Stolen Goods.
tially charging violation of federal law war.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER rants removal order.-U. S. V. Andrade, 10 distilled liquor with more than one-half of 1 F.(20) 572.
per cent. alcohol.-Benson v. U. S., 10 F.(20) Gaw 242(5) (U.S.D.C.R.I.) In removal proceed. 309. ing, due effect must be given to indictment, and m313 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Officers of vessel to decisions upholding its sufficiency.-Steeves carrying liquor, hovering off coast, chargeable v. Rodman, 10 F.(20) 212.
with knowledge of our laws.-Ford v. U. S., 10 Ono 242(5) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) In removal pro. F.(20) 339. ceedings, certified copy of indictment is prima Omw 321 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Search warrant facie evidence of “probable cause.”—U. S. v. which was lost, will be presumed to have been Andrade, 10 F.(20) 572.
properly drawn in form of law, in accordance Ono 242(6) (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Government, by of- with what was called for in affidavit.-Rouda v. fering evidence of details of plan of trade as- U. S., 10 F.(20) 916. sociation, did not narrow or abandon charges 327 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Burden on government of indictment.-Steeves v. Rodman, 10 F.(20) to prove accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt 212.
on trial.-U. S. v. Andrade, 10 F.(20) 572. Warrant of removal granted, and writ of ha- 335 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Incumbent govo beas corpus refused, where indictment raised ernment to prove defendants parties to crime prima facie case, and rebutting evidence raised within court's jurisdiction.-Ford v. U. S., 10 doubtful questions.-Id.
F.(20) 339. CM242(7), (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence in remove al proceedings, under indictment charging con
(B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, spiracy to aid convict to escape, held to show
and Res Gestæ. probable cause.-U. S. ex rel. Silverstein V. Om 351(10) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence of efHecht, 10 F.(2d) 370.
forts made to induce witness to leave is com242 (7) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Any competent evi- petent.-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 711. dence negativing existence of probable cause is admissible in removal proceedings.-U. S. v. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of AcAndrade, 10 F.(20) 572.
cused. In removal proceedings, government required to introduce evidence other than indictment, E369(!) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Testimony to show where accused's positive testimony meets is
or tending to show defendant's commission of sues raised thereby.-Id.
crimes independent of that for which he is on In removal proceedings, burden on govern
trial is inadmissible.-Smith v. U. S., 10 F.(20) ment to prove that accused is probably guilty.
(D) Materiality and Competency in GenIn removal proceeding, evidence involving issue of accused's intent held insufficient to overcome prima facie case made by indictment.-Id. no 390 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to permit de
Hardship in being compelled to defend in dis- fendants to testify they did not believe their tant district not considered in removal proceed
acts unlawful not erroneous.-Ford v. U. S., 10 ing.-Id.
F.(20) 339. Cm 242(?) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) In removal proceed- 392 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence that govings, evidence held insufficient to overcome
ernment had surrendered cash bail for attendpresumption of probable cause raised by indict- ance of absent witness properly excluded.ment, charging use of mails to defraud.-U. S. Dawson v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 106. v. Foster, 10 F.(2d) 577.
393 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Jl.) Government is not In removal proceedings, defendants' evidence required to advise accused of his right to must rebut presumption of probable cause rais- claim protection guaranteed under Constitution. ed by indictment.--Id.
-Thompson v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 781. On 242(8) (U.S.D.C.Tex.). Prerequisites to re
~39372) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Government held moval of accused to another district for trial not to have practiced fraud or deception in sestated.-U. S. v. Andrade, 10 F.(2d) 572. curing papers under subpænas addressed to
Accused's identity, if questioned in removal corporations although it later appeared that proceedings, is matter of proof as any other companies were not corporations.--Thompson question of fact in criminal case.-Id.
v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 781. Om 242 (8) (U. S. D. C. Tex.) Defendants who
393(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Recovery of marksevered connection with fraudulent scheme be- ed bill paid for liquor and its use in evidence fore letters set out in indictinent were mailed
held not violative of defendant's constitutional held entitled to discharge.-U. S. v. Foster, 10 rights.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 492. F.(20) 577.
m394 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence secured by
unlawful search of premises not occupied by IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS, AND defendants is competent.-Rouda v. U. s., 10 NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DISCON
Om 395 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Defendants held not 280(2) (App.D.C.) Absence of particular to have sustained burden of proof on issue denial in plea of abatement held to justify in- of suppression of evidence of liquors seized:ference of fact not denied.-U. S. v. Fali, 10 Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 339. F.(20) 618; U. S. v. Doheny, 10 F.(20) 651. On motion to suppress evidence, burden of Om 301 (U.S.C.C.A.TI.) Refusal to permit proof was on defendants.-Id. withdrawal of pleas of not guilty and filing of Seizure of British vessel held justified, and motion to quash indictment held within court's liquor seized admissible.-Id. discretion.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 401. Om 395 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Government held not
to have practiced fraud of deception in securX. EVIDENCE.
ing papers under subpænas addressed to corpo(A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions, and rations, although it later appeared that comBurden of Proof.
panies were not corporations.-Thompson v. U. On 304(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Judicial notice S., 10 F.(20) 781. taken of location of town of Tornillo, Tex.Benson v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 309.
(E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra
tive Evidence. Cmw 304(17) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.). It is common knowledge that Railroad Administration had ~400(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Expert accountno change of private carriers.-Dell'Aira v. U. ant may, as witness, suminarize contents of S., 10 F.(20) 102.
books.-Arine v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 778. Em 304 (20) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Judicial notice Cm 404(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Ordinarily liquor may be taken that "cognac" is brandy, being kept for sale and in possession of defendants son v. U. S.. 10 F.(22) 781. Admission of letters held justified by evidence Cm693 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Objection to evidence, identifying defendant as writer.-Id.
is admissible in evidence.- Ford v. U. S., 10 F. Om 444 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Circumstances
held (20) 339.
sufficient to constitute prima facie authentica404(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Articles discov• tion of telegram.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) ered on search of defendant's premises in pros- 339. ecution for violation of Harrison Narcotic Act Before telegram received in evidence, proof held admissible.-Ray v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 359. must connect it with its alleged author.-Id. (F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear
(1) Opinion Evidence.
em 472 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Rejecting expert tesC 419, 420(2) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Proof that cer- timony discrediting plaintiff's expert held er. tain statement was made is not “hearsay" of roneous.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 492. that fact, but is hearsay of truth of statement.
m472 (App.D.C.) Expert testimony that glass -Murray v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 409.
burial caskets were not commercially feasible
admissible in trial for conspiracy to defraud (G) Acts and Declarations of conspira. by selling stock in corporation manufacturing tors and Codefendants.
them.-De Camp v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 984.
Como 488 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Rejecting expert tes. Cm 422(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Admission of mu- timony discrediting plaintiff's expert and requirtilated $1 bills on which lists of liquor were ing defendant's expert to test liquor and give written held not error.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. evidence as to its character held erroneous.(20) 339.
Furlong v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 492. 423(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Logs of vessel seized held competent.–Ford v. U. S., 10 F.
(K) Confessions. (2d) 339. Declarations of one conspirator held admissi- fendant held properly admitted.-Pearlman v. U.
532(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Statements of deble against all.-Id.
S., 10 F.(20) 460. 423(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Acts declarations of conspirators in furtherance of con- ficiently to corroborate admissions of defendant.
m535(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held sufspiracy are admissible against co-conspirators. —Pearlman v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 460. -Murray v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 409. C423(i) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Acts and state-.
(M) Weight and Sufficiency. ments of party carrying into effect purpose Om549 (U.S.D.C.Tex.) “Prima facie evidence" on which he is engaged in common with others defined.-U. S. v. Andrade, 10 F.(20) 572. are admissible against his fellow collaborators. -Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 711.
564(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence held 423(2) (U.S.C.C.A.IN.) Evidence of con
sufficient to show conspiracy and prove one at versations between conspirators in accused's --Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 339.
least of overt acts within jurisdiction of court. absence as to statements by one of accused m572 (U.S.C.C.A.IN.) Essentials of defense neld competent, and not hearsay.-Murray v.
of "alibi" stated.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F.(20) U. S., 10 F.(20) 409.
401. ww423(6) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Testimony relative to transactions between conspirators relating XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINUANCE. to partially independent matters held admissible. Em605 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Denial of continuance -Thompson v. U. S., 10 F.(22) 781. ww42317) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Statements and to procure witness held not error.-Horowitz v. acts of members of brokerage firm and clerk in U. S., 10 F.(20) 286. furtherance of its scheme to defraud customers
XII. TRIAL. admissible_against participants.-Silkworth v.
(A) Preliminary Proceedings. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 711.
423(9) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Acts and declara. Em 620 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) It is within distions of conspirators after robbery held ad- cretion of court to consolidate indictments for missible.-Murray v. U. S., 10_F.(20) 409.
trial.-Cardigan v. Biddle, 10 F.(20) 444. Cm427(5) (U.S.C.C.A. Miss.) Evidence of cor- (B) Course and conduct of Trial in Gen. pus delicti held sufficient to render admissible
eral. statements of defendants.-Shook v. U. S., 10 cm 656(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Federal practice F.(20) 151.
justifies trial court in commenting on testi
mony.--Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 339. (H) Documentary Evidence Exclu- C 656(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Court's remark, sion of Parol Evidence Thereby.
in passing on testimony, that there had been Cm 434 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Books containing se- perjury, held without prejudice to defendants. crets of scheme to defraud admissible against -Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 339. members of firm having knowledge of them.Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 711.
(C) Reception of Evidence. Records of committees on Stock Exchange, m662(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Refusal to permit made at meetings at which defendants were cross-examination of government witnesses as represented, were admissible in evidence against to unfriendly feelings toward defendant held them.-Id.
erroneous.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 492. w434 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence found in 680 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) That evidence was account book taken from defendant held proper- introduced after ruling that paragraph was inly admitted.-Cholacoff v. U, S., 10 F.(20) 505. suflicient held immaterial, it being admissible Ci 438 (App.D.C.) Motion picture of manu- under other paragraph.-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 facture of glass caskets held properly exclud- F.(20) 711. ed, in prosecution for fraud. - De Camp v. U. Cum 683(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Right to call a wit. S., 10 F.(20) 984.
ness in rebuttal is in discretion of trial court. ( 441 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Refusal to require -Assaid v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 752. government to produce affidavit and search warrant on file in office of issuing justice held not
(D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to error.-Marin v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 271.
Strike Out, and Exceptions. Cam 442 (App.D.C.) Permitting defendant to be mo 692 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Defendant, who has questioned concerning particular woman as voluntarily turned over papers to grand jury, foundation for introduction of letter to her cannot afterwards insist that he was denied held not error.-Schwartz v. U. S., 10 F.(20) rights guaranteed under Constitution.—Thomp900.
that prosecutrix in white slave case contracted