Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

OD

em 347 (U.S.D.C.Del.) Under Rev. St. & 914 not controlling on federal courts.-Columbia (Comp. St. § 1537), District Court for Dela Ins. Co. of New Jersey v. Mart Waterman Co., ware, in passing on pleadings, must be guided 11 F.(20) 216. by laws of Delaware.-Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Bates Expanded Steel Truss Co., 11

(G) Supreme Court. F.(20) 415. Cw348 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Under Conformity Act Ew385(4), (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.). Whether vessel Sept. 24, 1789, § 34 (Rev. St. § 721 [Comp. owned and operated by foreign government is St. & 1538]), competency of evidence in civii subject to process is jurisdictional question case is determinable by law of state wherein

(Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215]).trial is had.-Von Crome v. Travelers' Ins. Co. The Nevada, 11 F.(20) 511. of Hartford, Conn., 11 F.(20) 350. Certificate of state bureau of vital statistics,

(H) Circuit Courts of Appeals. showing cause of insured's death, held properly Cm 405(16) (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Circuit Court admitted in evidence (Rev. St. Mo. 1919, of Appeals cannot notice assignment that find5816; Conformity Act Sept. 24, 1789, $ 34 ings are not supported by evidence, where evi[Rev. St. U. S. Š 721, being U. S. Comp. St. dence is not part of record.—Isaacs v. De Hon, 1538]).-Id.

11 F.(20) 943. em 352 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Bill in equity by re- m405 (16) (U.S.C.C.A.Ariz.) Petition for cerceiver to recover property subject of fraudu- tiorari and for diminution of record not filed lent and preferential transfer should have been

until two terms of court had passed, and motransferred to law side of docket (Const. tion to join additional parties, will be denied Amend. 7; Judicial Code, $ 267 [Comp. St. (C. C. A. Rule 18).-Smith v. Hovland, 11 F. 1244); Bankruptcy Act, &$ 60b, 70e [Comp. St. 21) 9. 88 9644, 9654]).--Adams v. Jones, 11 F.(20) 406(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Hawaii) Doubt as to 759.

construction of ambiguous Hawaiian statute 356 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Transcript of testi- should be resolved in favor of construction mony of all witnesses in question and answer thereof by Supreme Court of Hawaii.-U. S. form held improper (Equity Rule 75, par. b.). Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Henry Waterhouse -Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Ragland, 11 F. Trust Co., 11 F.(28) 497. (2d) 231.

406(I) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Circuit Court of Equity rule 75 does not contemplate order to Appeals on writ of error from trial court's acsend up all testimony in question and answer tion setting aside verdict and directing verdict form, being designed to prevent such record. of his own, with judgment thereon, cannot re-Id.

view order setting aside verdict.-Clemence F. 357 (U.S.D.C.La.) Whether defendant can

Hudson & M. Ry. Co., 11 F.(20) 913. compel plaintiff to give security for costs is gov- ww406(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Trial judge, erned by state law, in absence of federal statute setting aside verdict, had no authority to dior rule of court.--Sermons v. Kansas City rect verdict of his own and enter judgment, Southern Ry. Co., 11 F.(20) 671.

and Circuit Court of Appeals can only reverse

judgment and direct new trial.-Clemence F. (F) State Laws as Rules of Decision. Hudson & M. Ry. Co., 11 F.(2d) 913. 365 (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Federal courts sit

Cm 406 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Person, punished ting in equity are not bound by state court de

for failure to obey order of bankruptcy court, cisions relating to remedies or modes of pro

cannot on appeal raise point of lack of juriscedure.-Clark v. Andrew, 11 F.(21) 958.

diction to make original order, which had been Cm365 (U.S.D.C.Ala.) Federal courts will not ruled against him and appeal therefrom disfollow decisions of state courts which impair missed.-In re Silverman, 11 F.(20) 970. vested constitutional rights.-Perry v. Town of Samson, 11 F.(20) 655.

(K) Territorial and Provisional Courts. Om 366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Construction of

ww438 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) United States its own statute by state court is binding on

District Court of Porto Rico would have had federal courts.-Passaic Valley Sewerage

no jurisdiction to enjoin collection of $3,810.93 Com'rs v. U. S. ex rel. Holbrook, Cabot & Rol

as illegal taxes, where only $585.33 thereof delins Corporation, 11 F.(20) 748. 366(18) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In matters

pended on determination of federal question,

of lien law decisions of highest state court have Code, g 24 [Comp. St. & 991]): --Gallardo .

conceding there was such question (Judicial controlling influence on federal courts, and, if local law is clear, federal courts will accept it.

Santini Fertilizer Co., 11 F.(20) 587.
--New York-Brooklyn Fuel Corporation v.
Fuller, 11 F.(2d) 802.

(M) Court of Claims. 366(18) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Decree of highest Om 449(3) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Remedy for patent state court that mechanics' lien is entitled to infringement in manufacturing goods for Unitpriority over bankruptcy trustee, though filed ed States after July 1, 1918, is by suit against after adjudication, will be followed by federal United States in Court of Claims (Act July 1, court (New York Lien Law [Consol. Laws, c. 1918, amending Act June 25, 1910 [Comp. St. 33] $$ 3, 10, 13).-In re New York-Brooklyn Ann. Supp. 1919, § 9465]).-Luellen v. Baldwin Fuel Corporation, 11 F.(20) 796.

Locomotive Works, 11 F.(20) 390. Om 367 (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Rule of property established by state courts, whenever applica- VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING ble, is binding on federal courts.-Clark v. An

JURISDICTION, AND COMITY. drew, 11 F.(20) 958.

(B) State Courts and United States Courts. m371(1) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Federal courts will enforce new rights created by state stat- Om 493(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) State court, in ute.-Connecting Gas Co. v. Imes, 11 F.(20) which suit was brought to construe will, as af. 191.

fecting rights of legatees and remaindermen w371 (7) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Party suing to en- under trust agreement executed by life tenant, join collection of illegal tax is in same position held not to have acquired exclusive jurisdiction in federal as in state courts (Gen. Code Ohio, of trust estate.-Franz v. Buder, 11 F.(20) 854. § 12075).-Connecting Gas Co. v. Imes, 11 ww505 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Suit against execuF.(2d) 191,

tors and legatee to enforce assignment of inm372(8) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Extent to which terest in estate held within equity jurisdiction one aiding another's suit to protect his own in- of federal court, though res was in possession terest is bound by judgment therein is matter of probate court.-Chase Nat. Bank of New of general law, and state court decisions are York v. Sayles, 11 F.(20) 948

can

For cases In Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
CRIMINAL LAW.

(Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Comp. St. $$ 8820See Bail, Cw42–49; Bribery; Burglary; Con- 8823, 8827-8830]).—Meehan v. U. s., 11 F.(24)

847. spiracy, 23-48; Extradition; Forgery;

Indictment for violating Anti-Trust Law held Grand Jury; Homicide; Indictment and Information; Libel and Slander, ew141-156;

to sufficiently implicate individual defendant, so Perjury;

as to warrant his removal to trial jurisdiction Prostitution; Receiving Stolen

(Clayton Act, § 14 [Comp. St. § 8835m]).-Id. Goods.

242 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Fact of indict. I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME

ment is not necessarily conclusive in removal AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL.

proceeding.--U. S. ex rel. Brody v. Hecht, 11

bankruptcy On 25 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Whether

F.(20) 128. was voluntary or involuntary is immaterial, in

Federal judge should not consent to warrant

of removal to another district solely on strength prosecution for conspiracy to violate Bankrupt. cy Act (Penal Code, $ 37 [Comp. St. $ 10201];

of indietinent (Rev. St. & 1014 (Comp. St., $

1674)).-Id. Bankruptcy Act, $ 29b [Comp. St. § 9613]).

Indictment found in district to which removal Morrow v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 256. 29 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) The government can

is sought makes prima facie case for removal.

-Id. not make several_conspiracies out of one

Cam 242(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Indictment raises Powe v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 598.

presumption of probable cause, warranting reV. VENUE.

moval from district.-U. S. ex rel. Tassell v.

Mathues, 11 F.(20) 53. (A) Place of Bringing Prosecution,

ww242(6) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) District Court I 13 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) District Court for should be satisfied in removal proceedings that Oregon had jurisdiction of prosecution for indictment charges offense against United transporting girl from Oregon to California for States, but, if sufficiency of indictment is mereimmoral purpose (White Slave Traffic Act June ly doubtful, inquiry on habeas corpus not open. 25, 1910, 88 2, 3, 5 [Comp. St. $S 8813, 8814, -U. S. ex rel. Brody v. Hecht, 11 F.(20) 128. 8816]; Judicial Code, $ 42 [Comp. St. § 1024]). Em 242(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Doubtful questions -Hart v. U. S., 11 F. (2d) 499.

as to indictment left for court, where indict| 13 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Defendant may be ment found, and defendant removed to that distried at any place where conspiracy took place, trict.-U. S. ex rel. Tassell v. Mathues, 11 or overt act was committed.-U. S. ex rel. F.(20) 53. Tassell v. Mathues, 11 F.(20) 53.

Cm 242(7) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Government

offer testimony in support of indictment in reVI. LIMITATION OF PROSECUTIONS.

moval proceedings.-U. S. ex rel. Brody v. 147 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Six not three, years' Hecht, 11 F.(20) 128. limitation (Act Nov. 17, 1921 [Comp. St. Ann. Removal of defendant to district where inSupp. 1923, & 1708]), applies to violations of dictment was found held not justified by eviCriminal Code, $ 35 (Comp. St. § 10199), by dence as to place of crime (Harrison Narcotic presenting false claim against government and Act).-Id. false supporting affidavit.-Evans v. U. S., 11 Om242(7), (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) On government's F. (20) 37.

making prima facie case for removal of accusem 153 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Statute of limitations ed from district, burden shifts to defendant.does not run while accused is fugitive from jus- U. S. ex rel. Tassell v. Mathues, 11 F.(20) 53. tice.-U. S. v. Dooley, 11 F.(20) 428.

On 242(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Removal from

district for trial should be denied, where there VII. FORMER JEOPARDY.

is affirmative proof of innocence, challenged On 202 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.). Prosecution for only by indictment, and made, if conclusion of conspiracy to commit one or less number of of. no probable cause is put in substantial doubt by fenses charged in former indictment for con- other proofs than indictment.--Meehan v. U. spiracy is not authorized.-Powev. U. S., 11 S., 11 F.(20) 847. F.(2d) 598.

Letter written by manager of corporation to Conspiracy charged held no different from association of which it was member held to esthat charged in former indictment, because of tablish probable cause, justifying his removal different ownership of liquor purchased by de- to another district for trial on charge of viofendant for sale (National Prohibition Act, tit. lating Anti-Trust Law (Sherman Anti-Trust 2 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1013842 et Act [Comp. St. 88 8820-8823, 8827-8830]). seg.)).-Id.

-Id. Defendant held to have been put in jeopardy Ow242(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Indictment is not under former indictment, though it referred to conclusive evidence of probable cause in proliquor sales in certain city, while present indict. ceeding to remove defendant to another fedment referred to sales anywhere in district in eral district for trial, and exclusion of eviwhich such city was located (National Prohibi- dence to rebut presumption was error (Rev. St. tion Act, tit. 2 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 8, 1014 [Comp. St. $ 1674]).-U. S. ex rel. 1013812 et seg.]).-Id.

Nourse v. White, 11 F.(20) 843, followed in

U. S. ex rel. Rutz v. Anderson, 11 F.(20) 845. VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AFFI- 242(8) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Under Rev. St. 8

DAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMINATION, 1014 (čom. St. § 1674), providing for removal
COMMITMENT, AND SUMMARY

of offenders to district where trial is had, TRIAL.

duties of district judge are judicial.-U. S. ex em 242(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Accused cannot rel. Brody v. Hecht, 11 F.(20) 128. be tried in one district on indictment showing District judge must issue warrant for recommission of offense in another; removal to moval of defendant, either if each of things redistrict other than one in which Constitution quired by removal statute is clearly established permits trial to be had is unauthorized (Const. or if as to some of them he merely entertains Amend. 6; Const, art. 3. $.2).-U. S. ex rel. doubts as to establishment thereof (Rev. St. $ Brody v. Hecht, 11 F.(20) 128.

1014 [Comp. St. § 1674)).-Id. ww242 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Removal from dis- Disputed questions of fact or law cannot be trict for trial improper, if grand jury had no decided by court in which removal proceeding probable cause for finding indictment.-U. S. is heard.-Id. ex rel. Tassell v. Mathues, 11 F.(20) 53.

On 242(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Defendant, in reww242(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment charg. moval proceedings, must be afforded opporturiing violation of Sherman Act and supporting ty to show want of probable cause.-U. S. ex facts held sufficient in removal proceedings rel. Tassell v. Mathues, 11 F.(20) 53.

C243 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Defendants held for (D) Materiality and Competency in Genremoval, and appealing from order dismissing

eral. petition for habeas corpus, held not entitled to 386 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Telephone inquiry supersedeas.-U. S. ex rel. Tassell v. Mathues, by one who gave accused's name was not ad11 F.(20) 53.

missible against accused, in absence of proof

of identity-Lewis v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 745. IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS, AND

C 394 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Morphine seized and NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DISCON

facts connected with alleged unlawful seizure TINUANCE.

held admissible (Act Dec. 17, 1914, § 1, as em 280 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Demurrer to amended by Act Feb. 24, 1919, § 1006 [Comp. unverified plea in abatement, attacking indict- St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 8. 6287g), Act Feb. 9. ment for conspiracy to violate Prohibition Act 1909, § 2, as amended by Act Jan. 17, 1914, as having been found without probable cause,

and Act May 26, 1922, Š 1 [Comp. St. Ann. held properly sustained.-Simpson v. U. 8.,

Supp. 1923, § 8801]; Const. Amends. 4, 5).11 F.(20) 591.

Mattus v. U. s., 11 F.(20) 503.

Omw394 (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Search without warX. EVIDENCE.

rant of premises and garage, on detecting odor

of mash, held reasonable, and evidence procured (A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions, and

admissible (National Prohibition Act (Comp. Burden of Proof.

St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 1013844 et seq.)). Cm304 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) District Court can- Schulte v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 105. not take judicial notice, that a particular na- ww395 (U. S. C. C. A. Cal.) Morphine taken tional bank is a federal reserve bank or mem- from defendant's person held admissible as prober bank-U. S. v. Dooley, 11 F.(20) 428. cured by search after arrest on reasonable On 304(17) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Failure of cer- grounds (Narcotic Drug Act 1922 [Comp. St. tificate to state why bill of exceptions was sign- Ann. Supp. 1923, $ 8800 et seq.)).-Foster v. ed by another than trial judge, of whose death U. S., 11 F.(20) 100. Circuit Court of Appeals takes judicial notice, 395 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Morphine seized and not fatal.-Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.

facts connected with alleged unlawful seizure m304 (20) (U.S.C.C.A.MassCourt was not held admissible (Act Dec. 17, 1914, § 1, as authorized to say that witnesses testifying con

amended by Act Feb. 24, 1919, § 1006 [Comp. cerning "moonshine" did not mean moonshine

St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 862878]; Act Feb. 9, whisky, as affects necessity for proof of alco- 1909, 82, as amended by Act Jan. 17, 1914, holic content (National Prohibition Act (Comp. and Act May 26, 1922, $ 1 (Comp. St. Ann. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1013844 et seg.]).

Supp. 1923, § 8801]; Const. Amends. 4, 5).Weinstein v. U. S., 11 F.(2d) 505.

Mattus v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 503. en 304(20) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Courts judicially 395 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Search and seizure of know that whisky, alcohol, brandy, gin and oth- liquor in drug store by officer there to inspect er well-known intoxicants are "intoxicating liq. records required to be kept held unreasonable, uors" (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2,8 i and liquor seized inadmissible in evidence (Na(Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138121).- tional Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 34 [Comp. St. Keen v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 260.

Ann. Supp. 1923, $ 1013819u); Const. Amend. Courts do not judicially know that home 4).-In re Lobosco, 11 F.(20) 892. brew is "intoxicating liquor," within National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 1 (Comp. St. Ann. (E) Best and Secondary and DemonstraSupp. 1923, § 1013814), in absence of proof

tive Evidence. of alcoholic content.-id.

Om 400(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Deposit slips and C306 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Presumption cannot ledger pages of bank account admissible to be bottomed to a presumption.-Keen v. U. S., show failure to deposit checks and cash, as 11 F.(20) 260.

charged in indictment for conspiracy to conceal 317 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Defendant's failure assets.-Kolbrenner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 754. to cross-examine government witness concern- Testimony as to contents of bankrupt's books ing vital matters as to which government had by trustee properly admitted in prosecution for not examined him or to call him as his owu conspiracy to conceal assets.-Id. witness, held not to justify any conclusion in- One familiar with books of account may tes. jurious to him.-Oldham v. U. S., 11 F.(20) tify regarding them, for purpose of facilitat776.

ing jury in their inquiry.-Id. 322 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) No presumption ob- Om400(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Admission of copy tains that prior search warrants were unlaw- of lost letter to defendant, referring to his re. fully issued merely because no arrests or sei- lations with girl unlawfully transported, held zures were made.-Keith v. U. S., 11 F.(20) not error (White Slave Traffic Act June 23, 933.

1910, $$ 2, 3 (Comp St. 88 8813, 8814]).-Hart

v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 499. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Ac- 404(4) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) In prosecution cused.

for possessing goods. stolen from interstate 369(1), (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Evidence of pre

shipment, goods found in defendant's possession vious conviction not admissible to show likeli- held properly admitted (Act Feb. 13, 1913. & 1 hood that accused would commit crime again. [Comp. St. § 8603]).-Thomas v. U. S., 11 F. -Mansbach v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 221.

(2d) 27. 371 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Evidence of similar fraudulent transactions in prosecution

(G) Acts and Declarations of Conspira. for fraudulent use of mails in sale of worthless

tors and Codefendants. oil leases held admissible on question of intentem 422 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) As respects ad(Penal Code, 8 215 [Comp. St. 8 10385]).-Tin- missibility of evidence of acts of conspirators cher v. U. s., 11 F.(20) 18.

against one later joining when such a defendEvidence of ventures involving fraudulent in- ant joined conspiracy is immaterial, if he unittent similar to one charged in indictment is ad- ed with those already in, in carrying out commissible on question of intent.-Id.

mon design.-Morrow v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 256. Om 376 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Evidence assailing Acts of person committed prior to the foraccused's character not admissible until ac- mation of a conspiracy are not admissible cused puts_character in issue.-Mansbach v. against his subsequent coconspirator.-Id. U. S., 11 F.(20) 221.

422(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Testimony in ref377 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Accused may intro- erence to liquor taken from person of one of duce evidence of his good character.-Kreiner defendants was properly admitted against him, v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.

in prosecution for conspiracy and for unlawful

For cases la Doc.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER
possession (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, $

(C) Reception of Evidence.
3 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1013842aa).- Om673(2) (U. S. C. C. A. Cal.) In prosecution
Keith v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 933.

for mailing poisoned candy, evidence of disposi-
423(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Act of one con-

tion of typewriter by other than defendant held
spirator is act of all, and admissible against admissible on instructing as to effect.-Kerr v.
all, if done while conspiracy was pending and U. S., 11 F.(2d) 227.
in furtherance of its object.-Morrow v. U. S., 673(4) (App.D.C.) Permitting evidence of
11 F.(20) 256.

automobile and revolver belonging to one de-
423(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) In prosecution fendant to go before jury held not error, in
for conspiracy to violate National Prohibition absence of request for proper instruction lim-
Act, testimony by members of alleged associa; iting effect thereof.-Holmes v. U. S., 11 F.(20)
tion, but not indicted, held properly admitted 569.
as coming from co-conspirators (Criminal Code, Evidence competent against one defendant
& 37 [Comp. St. 10201; National Prohibition is admissible, and defendant against whom it is
Act, tit. 2, $$ 3, 6, 21, 25, 26 [Comp. St Ann. incompetent should offer instruction limiting its
Supp. 1923, 8$ 1013814aa, 10138120, 1013812jj, effect.-Id.
1013812m, 1013812mm]).-Weinstein v. U. S., Om681(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Evidence of act of
11 F. (2) 505.

one alleged conspirator before date of conspir-
423(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Statements by acy alleged held improperly allowed to remain
one conspirator in carrying out conspiracy were in record, where no subsequent evidence show-
competent evidence against others, though he ed conspiracy existed at time of such act (Pe-
was not under process or on trial.-Lewis v. U. nal Code, § 37 [Comp. St. § 10201]; Bankruptcy
S., 11 F.(2d) 745.

Act, $ 29b [Comp. St. $ 9613]).-Morrow v. U.
On 423(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Testimony in ref. S., 11 F.(20) 256.
erence to liquor taken from person of one of 686 (2) (Ú.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Granting govern-
defendants was admissible against other de-

ment's motion to reopen case for further testi-
fendants, in prosecution for conspiracy to vio- mony after it had rested held not error.-Mans-
late prohibition law (National Prohibition Act, bach v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 221.
tit. 2, § 3 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Š
101381aa]).-Keith v. U, S., 11 F.(20) 933. (D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to
Om 427(3) (U.S.C.C.A. Mich.) Admission in ev-

Strike Out, and Exceptions.
idence of incriminating statement by one de- www.692 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Druggist, furnishing
fendant, without first permitting cross-examina. bottles in which to carry away liquor unlaw-
tion of witness through whom it was offered, fully seized, held not to have waived his con-
held not error.-Lewis v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 745. stitutional rights.-In re Lobosco, 11 F.(20)

892.
(I) Opinion Evidence.
Om 448(1) (U. S. C. C. A. Mich.) Objection to

(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.
questions by defendants' counsel, calling for 704 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Defendant's counsel
conclusions of witness. held properly sustained. should not have made opening statement, if
-Lewis v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 745.

he did not expect to introduce evidence to sub-

stantiate it.-Lewis v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 745.
(J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code- Om730 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Opening remarks
fendants.

of prosecuting attorney, in prosecution for con-
Om510 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Conviction may be spiracy to violate National Prohibition Act,
had for violations of Prohibition Act on evi- though unsupported by evidence, held not prej-
dence of an accomplice, if believed by jury.- udicial, in view of court's statement (National
Roberts v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 606.

Prohibition Act, tit. 2, $$ 3, 6, 21, 25, 26 (Comp.

St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 88 1013812aa, 1013819c,
(M) Weight and Sufficiency.

1013842jj, 1013842m, 1013842mm]).-Wein-
ww561 (3) (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) Previous good stein v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 505.
character does not, as matter of law, raise rea-
sonable doubt of guilt, but should be considered

(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen-

eral.
with other evidence in determining guilt or in-
nocence.-Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(21) 722.

@mo737 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Proof of venue in

district of trial held sufficient, on prosecution
XII. TRIAL.

for causing presentation of false claim against

United States.--Summers v. U. S., 11 F.(20)
(A) Preliminary Proceedings.

583.
em 620(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Compelling defend- m763, 764(3, 4) (App. D. C.) In prosecution
ants separately indicted to go to common trial for murder of policeman, requested instruction
held unauthorized by statutes (Rev. St. $8_921, that there was no evidence of arrest or attempt
1024 (Comp. St. $$ 1547, 1690]).—Zedd v. U. S., to arrest held properly denied, as invading
11 F.(2d) 96.

province of jury.-Holmes v. U.S., 11 F.(20)
Om622(1), (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Granting of sep- 569.
arate trials within sound discretion of trial
court.-Tincher v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 18.

(G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency

of Instructions.
On 629 (App.D.C.) Misspelling to extent of
single letter of witness name, given defendant 776(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence to
under Rev. St. § 1033 (Comp. St. § 1699), held accused's "reputation" does not warrant charge
not prejudicial.-Holmes v. U. S., 11 F.(20) that evidence of good "character" may create
569.

reasonable doubt of guilt.-Kreiner v. U. S., 11

F.(2d) 722.
(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in Gen- Cm789(9) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Instruction defin-
eral.

ing "reasonable doubt"_held not erroneous.-
Om656 (9) (U. S.C. C. A. Ind.) Expressions of U. S. v. Thompson, 11 F.(20) 875.
opinion by trial court on ultimate issues is not 809 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court should refuse
to be commended in ordinary cases, even when accused's request for instruction in form which
accompanied by clear and positive_statement would mislead jury.-Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.
that jury are sole judges of facts.-Fryer v. U. (20) 722.
S., 11 F.(20) 707.

811 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Requested charge
Trial court's expression of opinion that gov- that evidence of good character may create
ernment had proved scheme to defraud by use reasonable doubt of guilt properly refused, as
of mails held not error, where evidence of guilt directing special attention to character evidence
was clear.-Id.

only.-Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.

as

coun-

823(2) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Instruction thrice 1043(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Fla.) Error cannot be
warning jury that defendants were interested assigned to court's charges, where no exception
parties, and to consider evidence accordingly, was taken to any particular charge, and ser-
held not improper in view of further instruction. eral of them were correct (Rules of Circuit
--Tolbert v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 78.

Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, rule 10).-

Popham v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 966.
(H) Requests for Instructions.

m1043(2), (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Objection to eri-
w824(1), (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In criminal case dence must be specific, and exception to court's
court should instruct on all essential questions ruling taken, before error can be predicated
of law involved, whether requested or not.-

thereon.--Tenenbaum v. U. S., 11 F.(2d) 927.
Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.

1043(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) General objection
Om824(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Accused's

to admission of testimony, in trial for violat-
sel has no right to assume that court will in- ing White Slave Traffic Act, as to defendant's
struct on character evidence without request. statements about another girl than one trans-
--Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.

ported, unavailing on appeal (Act June_257,
ema826 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Refusal of request 1910, $2, 3 [Comp. St. 88 8813, 8814]).-Hari
to charge, presented after jury was instructed,

v. U. S., 11 F.(211) 499.
not error (rule 7 of District Court, Southern cm 1043(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) No objections
District of New York).-Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F. to sufficiency of search warrant, other than
(2d) 722.

those urged in trial court, may be considered by
em 829(1), (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Rejecting portion Circuit Court of Appeals.-Pera v. U. S., 11 F.
of accused's requested instruction was not er- (20) 772.
ror, where rejected portion was covered by an- 1054(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Objection to eri-
other charge given.--Meadows v. U. S., 11 F. dence must be specific, and exception to court's
(20) 718.

ruling taken, before error can be predicated
829(I) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Special charges, thereon.-Tenenbaum v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 927.
covered by general charge, held properly re- Om 1054(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Failure to note
fused.-Kolbrenner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 754. exception in order overruling motion for new
Om829(1) (App.D.C.) Denial of requested in- trial held not to preclude Circuit Court of Ap-
structions covered by others given is not error. peals from considering sufficiency of evidence.
-Holmes v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 569.

where ground for new trial alleged error in
829(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Refusal to give overruling motion and recited exception there-
accused's requested charge relating to credi- to.-Coleman v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 601.
bility of accomplice testimony was not error,

Cm 1054(3) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Generally suf-
where matter was fully covered by charge ficiency of evidence to support verdict cannot be
given.-Meadows v. U. s., 11 F.(2d) 718. reviewed by writ of error, unless exception is
Cw830 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court may refuse in- taken before a verdict to a ruling thereon.-
struction, which is in any respect erroneous,

Tincher v. U. S., 11 F.(2d) 18.
without qualification.-Kreiner v. U. s., 11 F 1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Error in re-
(2d) 722.

fusing accused's requested instruction cannot
Failure to refer to character testimony in

be reviewed, in absence of exception.-Pera v.
charge not error, where only request was for

U. S., 11 F.(20) 772.
erroneous instruction thereon after jury was

Om 1059(2) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Part of charge
instructed.--Id.

complained of, not separately excepted to, held
Om835 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court need not state

not properly presented for review.-Incardonia
reason for refusing requested instruction.— v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 607.
Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.

(D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec-
(K) Verdict.

ord.
889 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Order discharging Om1091 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Bill of exception,
jury after verdict can be recalled for resubmis- complaining that jurors who heard testimony
sion for error, where jury has not separat-

of officers on hearing, preceding trial were per-
ed and is still in court's presence.-Summers v.

mitted to serve, held insufficient.-Schulte v. U.
U. S., 11 F.(20) 583.

S., 11 F.(20) 105.

Om 1092 (14) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Under Act
XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN

June 5, 1900, § 1 (Comp. St. § 1590), certificate
ARREST.

of bill of exceptions should state why another
911 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Refusing

than the trial judge allowed and signed bill.-

set
aside verdict of jury and grant new trial is with-

Kreiner v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 722.
in sound discretion of trial court.-Tincher v. U. w 119(4) (U.S.C.C.A. Mass.) Assignment of
S., 11 F.(20) 18.

error, complaining of remark of prosecuting at-

torney, held not to present anything for review,
XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL

in absence of showing of related facts (Nation-
COMMITMENT.

al Prohibition Act (Comp St. Ann. Supp. 1923.
Om991 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) Judgment

$ 1013844 et seq.)).--Weinstein v. U. S., 11

F.(20) 505.
tencing defendant to prison for two years on

Oml 120(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Error in exclu-
each of eight counts, terms to be cumulative un-
til defendant has been imprisoned for ten years, ception does not show nature of evidence or con-

sion of evidence not available where bill of ex-
held not void for uncertainty.-Fryer v. U. S.,

tents of motion to exclude (Const. Amends. 4,
11 F.(20) 707.
Cm991 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Where excessive 1121(1)(U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Designation

5).--Foster v. U. S., 11 F.(2d) 100.

of
portion of sentence is not separable, the whole evidence as bill of evidence, instead of bill of
is void.-Biddle y. Thiele, 11 F.(2d) 235.

exceptions, held not to preclude consideration

thereof as bill of exceptions.-Coleman v. t.
XV, APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CER-

S., 11 F.(20) 601.
TIORARI.

eww1122(5) '(U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Exceptions to de-
(B) Presentation and Reservation in Low- nial of requested instructions present nothing
er Court of Grounds of Review.

for review, where such instructions are not in
1036(8) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Reviewing tri- record.—Morrow v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 256.
bunal will only in very exceptional cases exer-
cise its discretion to review sufficiency of evi-

(G) Review.
dence to sustain conviction, where point was not an 1159(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Circuit Court of
appropriately raised in lower court.- Tincher v. Appeals cannot determine weight of evidence.
U. S., 11 F.(20) 18.

-Keith v. U. S., 11 F.(20) 933.

to

sen-

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »