For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER corporations having common directors to show of VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS. 542(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.M.) Conveyance insolvent company's property and reconveyance to president and secretary held fraudulent as to creditor who had originally conveyed to company.-Kitchen v. Canavan, 22 F. (2d) 116. When title of grantees is denied, conveyance of insolvent company's property and reconveyance to president and secretary must be explained. Id. Corporation's officers occupied fiduciary relation toward creditor, preventing them from appropriating company's assets or otherwise diverting them.-Id. 547 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.M.) Creditor of insol vent corporation, with equitable right to have land applied in payment of claim, held entitled to land as against corporation's secretary, claiming under fraudulent conveyance.-Kitchen Canavan, 22 F. (2d) 116. COSTS. VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND ON NEW TRIAL OR MOTION THEREFOR. 221 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Neither party bringing error in cross-actions on single record are entitled to costs.-F. E. Atteaux & Co. v. Pancreon Mfg. Corporation, 22 F. (2d) 749. COUNTERFEITING. 16 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Allegation that defend"ant knowingly transferred counterfeited obligation sufficiently, charges knowledge of its character (Cr. Code, § 154 [18 USCA § 268]).— Graffi v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 593. Indictment charging transfer of counterfeited obligation with intent to defraud United States held sufficient (Cr. Code, § 154 [18 US CA 268]).-Id. Defect in form of indictment for transferring counterfeited obligation held not ground for holding indictment insufficient (18 USCA § 556).-Id. 107 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Language of court's opinion must be read in light of facts before it-Julian Petroleum Corporation v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F. (2d) 360. V. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDICTION. 2004 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Probate courts cannot render judgment against creditors of estate or impress equitable lien on land.-In re Von Ruden, 22 F. (2d) 860. VII. UNITED STATES COURTS. (A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General. 255 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Federal district court has only such jurisdiction as is expressly granted.-Taylor v. De Hart, 22 F. (2d) 206. 259 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Federal court must determine its own jurisdiction, regardless of state statutes or decisions.-Deere v. State of New York, 22 F. (2d) 851. compensation awards, as violative of equal pro262 (2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Enforcement of tection and due process clauses, will not be restrained, where no rehearing or appellate review in state courts was sought (Workmen's Compensation Act of California; Const. U. S. Amend. 14).-U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blankenhorn, 22 F. (2d) 574. 264 (2) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Summary rule, based on power of courts to control misconduct in their officers, is discretionary.-In re Film and Pictorial Representation of Dempsey-Tunney, Fight, 22 F. (2d) 837. 265 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Federal court may grant mandamus to compel officer to perform legal duty under revenue law.-Bruer v. Woodworth, 22 F. (2d) 577. (B) Jurisdiction Dependent on Nature of Subject-Matter. for unlawful search held not controversy aris282(1) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Action for damages ing under Federal Constitution justifying federUSCA]; Const. Amend. 4; Judicial Code, § al jurisdiction (National Prohibition Act [27 24 [28 USCA § 41]).-Taylor v. De Hart, 22 F. (2d) 206. 284 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Action for damages for unlawful search held not controversy arising under federal laws justifying federal jurisdiction (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]; Const. Amend. 4; Judicial Code, § 24 [28 USCA § 41]). Taylor v. De Hart, 22 F. (2d) 206. 292 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Issue of unfair competition cannot be determined by federal court, whose jurisdiction was invoked on ground of infringement of registered trade-mark, which was incapable of registration (Trade-Mark Act, § 5 [15 USCA § 85]).-Jell-Well Dessert Co. v. Jell-X-Cell Co., 22 F. (2d) 522, affirming decree (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 159. 299(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Whether federal question is presented in suit to enjoin restraint of interstate commerce must be determined from face of bill (Sherman Anti-Trust Act [15 USCA §§ 1-7, 15]; Clayton Act [38 Stat. 730]). -Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America, 22 F.(2d) 559. 96(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Though district court 299 (3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Complaint in ejectis not bound to follow decisions in other circuits, such decisions are persuasive.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., 22 F. (2d) 331. federal 96 (1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Ruling of courts in one circuit is not binding as precedent on courts in other circuits.-Christianssand Shipping Co. v. Marshall, 22 F. (2d) 192. 99(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Order appointing receivers may not be vacated by another judge sitting in same court on same record.-Hardy v. North Butte Mining Co., 22 F. (2d) 62, reversing decree (D. C.) 20 F. (2d) 967. 22 F. (2d)-66 ment held not to state cause of action arising under Federal Constitution or law.-Deere v. State of New York, 22 F. (2d) 851. 299(3) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) To present "federal distinctly that suit arises under some federal question," facts averred must show clearly and law.-Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America, 22 F.(2d) 559. Bill against mine workers' union to enjoin interference with workers and occupancy of plaintiff's houses held to state cause of action within Sherman Act; "federal question" (Sher man Anti-Trust Act [15 USCA §§ 1-7, 15]). 365(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) That three of sev-Id. Attorney General of Nebraska has no general authority to appear in suits against state in federal court and consent to waiver of state's immunity from suit (Comp. St. Neb. 1922, §§ 4834-4844; Const. U. S. Amend. 11).-Id. →307(1) ́ (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) State is not a "citizen," within federal statutes relating to suits by citizens of different states.-O'Connor v. Slaker, 22 F. (2d) 147. 310 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) State held not indispensable party in suit to determine heirship, so as to defeat federal court's jurisdiction (Const. Amend. 11).-O'Connor v. Slaker, 22 F.(2d) 147. 322(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Diversity of citizenship, to give jurisdiction to federal court, must appear from face of complaint.-Deere v. State of New York, 22 F.(2d) 851. (D) Jurisdiction Dependent on Amount or Value in Controversy. 328(2) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Effect of decision on amount of defendant's taxes for other years cannot increase amount involved for jurisdictional purposes.-Wichita County Improvement Dist. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 22 F. (2d) 997. (E) Procedure, and Adoption of Practice of State Courts. 344(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Rule authorizing substituted service at defendant's usual abode excludes other methods of substituted service, with certain exceptions (equity rule 13).-U. S. v. Waverly Club, 22 F.(2d) 422. Substituted service on defendant in liquor nuisance abatement suit by leaving copy of subpœna at defendant's place of business held invalid (equity rule 13; National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 22, 23 [27 USCA §§ 34, 35]). -Id. 350 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Under statute, taking of deposition is not controlled by state statutes (equity rule 54; 28 USCA §§ 639, 643; Conformity Act [28 USCA § 7241).-Nieman v. Plough Chemical Co., 22 F. (2d) 73. 352(7) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Under federal practice, District Judge may in proper case refer cause to auditor.-Veneri v. Draper, 22 F. (2d) 33. State statutes authorizing reference to master for determination of issues will not be followed by federal court (Conformity Act [28 USCA § 724]; Const. Amend. 7).-Id. Procedure prescribed by state law on reference, being similar under federal practice, may properly be followed by federal court (Barnes' Code W. Va. 129, § 10; Conformity Act [28 USCA § 724]).—Id. (F) State Laws as Rules of Decision. 359 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) In federal courts, attorney has no lien on client's cause of action, unless given by state statute.-Albright v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 22 F. (2d) 832. en judges dissented does not touch binding effect of state Supreme Court's decision on federal courts.-Thurlow v. Waite-Phillips Co., 22 F. (2d) 781. 365 (27) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Federal courts are bound by Kansas Supreme Court's decision as to whether oil lease of riparian land in that state carries accretions.-Thurlow v. WaitePhillips Co., 22 F. (2d) 781. 366(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Decision construing state statute must be by highest court of estate, to be binding on federal courts.-Hudson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 22 F. (2d) 791. Decisions of Missouri appellate courts, construing state statute, held not binding on federal court.-Id. bound by state court's interpretation of state 366(1) (U.S.D.C.Va.) Federal court is statute.-Kelleher v. French, 22 F.(2d) 341. 366 (3) (U.S.D.C.Va.) Decision of state court construing statute, though not binding on federal court construing same statute because of different facts, is entitled to great respens (Laws Va. 1914, c. 36).-Kelleher v. French, 22 F. (2d) 341. 367(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Decision of highest state court after rights and liabilities have accrued is not binding on federal courts as rule of decision.-Mothersead v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 22 F. (2d) 644; Same v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 22 F.(2d) 654; Same v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 22 F. (2d) 654; Same v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 22 F. (2d) 654; Same v. American Surety Co. of New York, 22 F.(2d) 655. court 368 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) On retrial, must follow decision of appellate court reversing its judgment, though state statute on which it was based has since been given contrary construction by Supreme Court of state.-Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co. v. Federal Surety Co., 22 F. (2d) 712. 374 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) State statute concerning dismissal for want of prosecution held test as to failure to prosecute (Code Civ. Proc. Cal. $583).-U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Bank Line Transport & Trading Co., 22 F. (2d) 430. (H) Circuit Courts of Appeals. 405 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Circuit Court of Appeals must notice objection, raised for first time in that court, that suit could not be brought against state (Const. Amend. 11).-O'Connor v. Slaker, 22 F. (2d) 147. 405 (12) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Writ of error cannot be maintained to review order abating action as against one of two defendant corporations (28 USCA § 225).-Hewitt v. Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co. of Delaware, 22 r.(2) 925. 406(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Appellate court's decision that order in former action barred defendants' right to sue in state court held to preclude amendment of answer.-Hickey v. Williams, 22 F. (2d) 787, granting mandamus to enforce decree Same v. Johnson, 9 F. (2d) 498. (J) District Courts. 419 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Original Eastern and Western districts of Oklahoma were continued for trial and punishment of crimes committed prior to enactment of statute creating three new districts (Jud. Code, $ 59 [28 USCA § 121]; 28 USCA § 182).—Lewis v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 760. (L) Courts of District of Columbia. 443 (App.D.C.) Congress has plenary power as local Legislature of District of Columbia in matter of conferring, jurisdiction and powers on courts of District.-Hill v. Dorsey, 22 F. (2d) 1003. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING (B) State Courts and United States Courts. 489(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Receiver of national bank may maintain action in state court to enforce stockholder's liability.-Jones v. Jenkins, 22 F. (2d) 642. 489(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Purely probate matters are not within federal court's jurisdiction.-O'Connor v. Slaker, 22 F. (2d) 147. Federal court has jurisdiction to determine heirship, and such jurisdiction cannot be destroyed by state.-Id. Court of indictment held to have jurisdiction to try defendant, though crime extended into district of his residence (Const. Amend. 6). -Id. 113 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Where indictment charged conspiracy between defendants residing in Pennsylvania district and others in Ohio dis trict and commission of overt acts in both districts, Ohio District Court had jurisdiction (National Prohibition Act. [27 USCA]; Jud. Code, $ 42 [28 USCA § 103]).-U. S. v. Mayer, 22 F. (2d) 827. Where indictment charged conspiracy to violate National Prohibition Act to have been committed in Pennsylvania and also in Ohio, defendants residing in Pennsylvania could be tried in Ohio district (27 USCA; Const. Amend. 6). -Id. VII. FORMER JEOPARDY. 493(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Insured's action on policy, removed to federal court, did not oust ju-200 (4) (U.S.D.C.Idaho) Unlawful posses risdiction of state court of another state to entertain attachment suits by insured's creditors to reach proceeds of policy.-Ackerman v. Tobin, 22 F.(2d) 541. sion and transportation of intoxicating liquors are separate offenses (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).-U. S. v. One Oldsmobile Coupe, 22 F.(2d) 441. AFFI VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, 497 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Where suit affects custody of property, court first acquiring ju risdiction of res may proceed without hindrances by any other court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.-Ackerman v. Tobin, 22 F. (2d) 541. 498 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) It is only while prop-207(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) District Court has erty is in possession of court that it protects such possession from process of other courts. -Ackerman v. Tobin, 22 F.(2d) 541. 508(2) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Federal court held without jurisdiction to enjoin numerous actions in state court to enable complainant to litigate question of liability in single suit.-Kennedy v. City of White Bear Lake, 22 F. (2d) 862. CRIMINAL LAW. I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME 37 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Charge of bribery against relator held result of illegal entrapment.-U. S. ex rel. Hassel v. Mathues, 22 F. (2d) 979. IV. JURISDICTION. 84(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Prosecution in court of new district of crime committed in its territory prior to creation of district held not in violation of Constitution (Const. Amend. 6).Quinlan v. U. S.. 22 F. (2d) 95. general control over criminal prosecution in progress before it, including power to reach forward to control preliminary proceedings.-In re Film and Pictorial Representation of DempseyTunney Fight, 22 F. (2d) 837. 211(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Indictment attached to complaint for warrant of arrest must be considered as part of complaint in determining its sufficiency.-U. S. v. Mayer, 22 F. (2d) 827. Complaint held to set forth offense of conspiracy to violate National Prohibition Act with sufficient certainty to authorize issuance of warrant of arrest (27 USCA).-Id. 239 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Discharge of defendant by committing magistrate neither annuls indictment nor blots out offense.-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F. (2d) 823. ~~242(1) Only person whom grand jurors intended to indict can be removed to another state for trial under indictment.-U. S. ex rel. Mouquin v. Hecht, 22 F. (2d) 264. (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) 242 (5) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Indictment with proof that defendant is one named in it is prima 97(4) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Prosecution for mur- facie evidence of probable cause in proceedings der committed in Presidio of San Francisco held for removal.-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F. (2d) 823. within jurisdiction of United States courts (18242(5) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) In proceeding for USCA § 451; St. Cal.. 1897, p. 51, supplementing St. Cal. 1891, p. 262: Joint Res. Oct. 22, 1914, No. 53, 38 Stat. 783; Act Aug. 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 637; St. Cal. 1917, p. 626).-U. S. v. Watkins, 22 F. (2d) 437. V. VENUE. (A) Place of Bringing Prosecution. 113 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Court of new district has jurisdiction of prosecution for crime committed in its territory before its creation from other districts (Judicial Code, §§ 59, 300 [28 USCA §§ 121, 443]).—Quinlan v. U. S., 22 E. (2d) 95. 113 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Conspiracy may be tried in any district where overt act was committed.-Sell v. Rustad, 22 F. (2d) 968. 113 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Indictment charging conspiracy in various places to violate National Prohibition Act held triable in certain federal district (27 USCA).-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F.(2d) 823. 113 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Court has jurisdiction to try offense begun in another district and completed in district of prosecution (Jud. Code, § 42 [28 USCA § 103]).-U. S. v. Jordan, 22 F. (2d) 702. commitment of defendant for removal for trial, indictment is not conclusive evidence of probable cause.-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F. (2d) 826. 242 (5) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause in proceedings for removal to another federal district for trial. -U. S. v. Mayer, 22 F. (2d) 827. 242 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to sustain finding of commissioner, removing accused to another district for trial under indictment, that accused was person intended by grand jury in indictment.-U. S. ex rel. Mouquin v. Hecht, 22 F.(2d) 264. 242 (7) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) In proceeding for commitment of accused for removal for trial, presumption of probable cause raised by government's evidence held not overcome by accused's testimony.-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F. (2d) 826. 242 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Exclusion of defensive evidence in proceeding for removal of defendant held not to invalidate order of removal.-Sell v. Rustad, 22 F.(2d) 968. 242(8) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) In proceeding for commitment of accused for removal, court does not act in mere ministerial capacity, but should not hold preliminary trial.-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F. (2d) 826. 242 (8) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Complaint for arrest of defendant for removal to another district held sufficient.-U. S. v. Jordan, 22 F. (2d) 702. Only question before commissioner in proceeding for removal to another district is that of probable cause.-Id. 242 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Court in district to which defendant has been removed from another district, where he is also under indictment, may order him returned (18 USCA § 591).-U. S. ex rel. Gellman v. Stauffer, 22 F. (2d) 553. 242(11) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Whether evidence offered by defendant in proceedings for his commitment for removal for trial rebutted inference arising from indictment was question for commissioner ordering commitment.-U. S. v. Fogel, 22 F. (2d) 823. 322 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Presumption is that oath certified by notary was properly administered.-Hardy v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 153. from 323 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Presumption possession of narcotic drugs in unstamped package of unlawful purchase does not extend to venue of purchase (Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, § 1, as amended [26 USCA §§ 211, 691-694]).De Bellis v. U: S., 22 F. (2d) 948. 335 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Issue of identity of accused is always open, and prosecution has burden of proof thereon.-U. S. ex rel. Mouquin v. Hecht, 22 F.(2d) 264. (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Is- 338(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence is not inadmissible because jury may have found in favor of government without it.-Johnston v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 1. 341 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence of previous conduct and relations of defendant and another held admissible to show conduct and relations at time it was claimed defendant received money, stolen from mails (Penal Code, § 194. [18 USCA § 317]).-Johnston v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 1. 359 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Testimony that third person had admitted that he was one who sold liquor held properly excluded (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).-Neal v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 52. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Accused. 369 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Relevant evidence is not inadmissible because it proves another distinct offense.-Johnston v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 1. 370 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) In prosecution for receiving money, stolen from mails, evidence of previous transaction between parties held admissible to show guilty knowledge (Penal Code, § 194 [18 USCA § 317]).-Johnston v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 1. 388 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Test of alcoholic content by "ebulliometer" held admissible.Clift v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 549. 392 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Prosecution may excuse failure to produce material witness by showing he cannot be found.-Gentili v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 67. 394 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Search under state warrant not complying with federal requirements held joint federal and state enterprise, and evidence procured thereby not admissible (Const. Amend. 4; National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 3, 25 [27 USCA §§ 12, 39]; Espionage Act 1917, tit. 11, § 1 [18 USCA § 611]).— Thompson v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 134. agent's 394 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Prohibition search of premises without warrant held illegal, and evidence thereby obtained inadmissible.-U. S. v. Codde, 22 F. (2d) 690. 395 (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Search, without warrant, of dwelling house and dugout, during owner's absence, held unlawful, and liquor seized inadmissible.-Cola v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 742, reversing judgment in part (D. C.) U. S. v. Lorenz, 17 F. (2d) 829. 407(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Assertion that sale was made, not denied, held competent in prosecution for maintaining liquor nuisance.Gentili v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 67. (1) Opinion Evidence. 491(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Expert may testify disputed documents were signed by defendant, on comparison wtih other documents admittedly signed by him (28 USCA § 638).-Fuston v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 66. (K) Confessions. 531 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Admission of confession in evidence held not error, where evidence supported finding that it was voluntary.-Montolla v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 804. 535 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Full proof of corpus deliciti, independently of extrajudicial confessions, is not necessary.-Wynkoop v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 799. (M) Weight and Sufficiency. 564 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Ruling that ven ue of offenses committed two miles south of Marfa was in District Court for Western District of Texas held warranted.-Montolla v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 804. XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINUANCE. 586 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Allowance of continuance is generally discretionary with trial court. Hardie v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 803. 586 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Motion for continuance is within sound discretion of trial judge.-Neal v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 52. 372 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence of landing intoxicating liquors before date of overt acts charged in indictment for conspiracy to possess and transport such liquors held admissible (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA, § 88]; National Prohibi-589(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Refusal of continution Act [27 USCA]).-Rubio v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 766. ance because of mistrial at same term of court held not abuse of discretion (National Prohi For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER bition Act [27 USCA]).-Neal v. U. S., 22 F. (1) Objections to Instructions or Refusal Thereof, and Exceptions. (2d) 52. 844(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Exceptions charge must be specifically made.-Purciller v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 679. 589 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Refusing continuance on ground of absence and illness of accused's attorney, where accused had ample opportunity to secure other counsel and did do so, held not abuse of discretion.-Hardie v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 803. XII. TRIAL. (B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General. 656 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Statement of court relative to common practice of having pressure tanks at stills held not prejudicial, in prosecution for operating unregistered still, -Colasurdo v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 934. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. 699 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Order of argument is entirely within court's discretion.-Hardie v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 803. 711 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Extent of argument is entirely within court's discretion.-Hardie v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 803. (F) Province of Court and Jury in General. ~~~~741(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sufficiency of identification of articles abandoned by fleeing defendants held for jury in trial for conspiracy to possess and transport intoxicating liquor (Cr. Code, § 37 [18 USCA § 881; National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).-Rubio v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 766. 741(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Corroborating evidence, in addition to extrajudicial confession of prohibition agent, charged with converting and embezzling liquor, held for jury.Wynkoop v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 799. on 761(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Instruction defense of alibi held not prejudicial, as taking from jury question whether offense was committed by any one.-Fay v. U. S., 22 F. (24) 740, affirming judgment (D. C.) U. S. v. Fay, 19 F. (2d) 620. 762 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Comment on conflicting testimony by judge in charge held within proper limits.-Egan v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 776. (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency of Instructions. 775(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Court may not withdraw alibi defense from jury, or decline to instruct thereon, merely because evidence thereon is deemed inconclusive or feeble.-Fay v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 740, affirming judgment (D. C.) U. S. v. Fay, 19 F. (2d) 620. to (J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury. ~863(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Instruction regarding jury's duty to settle case, given when jury returned asking for further instructions, held not objectionable (Cr. Code, § 37 18 USCA § 88]).-Wissel v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 468. Instruction in effect that verdict of not guilty was setting at defiance law and reason, when jury gave promise of disagreeing, held erroneous, and deprived defendants of fair and impartial trial (Cr. Code § 37 [18 USCA § 88]). -Id. 864 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Court's asking jury whether it was about evenly divided held error. -Jordan v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 966. ~865(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Judge may not command or coerce verdict of guilty.-Wissel v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 468. Punishment may be imposed only on jury's verdict, which may not be forced.-Id. Jury must be left free to reach its own conclusions and record its conscientious convictions. -Id. (K) Verdict. 878 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Verdict of conviction must be supported by evidence other than facts pleaded in other counts, on which defendants were acquitted.-Boyle v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 547. 878 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Verdict acquitting defendants on count charging conspiracy to maintain nuisance, and convicting them on count charging them with "knowingly" maintaining nuisance, held inconsistent.-Boyle v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 547. 878(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Acquittal on count charging falsely making affidavit held consistent with conviction for uttering and publishing and presenting to clerk of court (Criminal Code, 28 [18 USCA § 72]).-Martin v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 410. (L) Waiver and Correction of Irregularities and Errors. 901 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Motion for directed verdict held abandoned by subsequent introduction of testimony and failure to renew motion. -Purciller v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 679. 901 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Motion for directed verdict, not renewed after introduction of evidence by defendant, is waived.-Egan v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 776. 778(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Instruction that XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CER- (A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and on 805(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Instruction defense of alibi held not objectionable, as referring to a single offense, though indictment was in several counts.-Fay v. U. S., 22 F.(2d), 740, affirming judgment (D. C.) U. S. v. Fay, 19 F. (2d) 620. 823(1) (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Statement in instruction that defendant "has not seen fit to take the witness stand in his own behalf" held not prejudicial, in view of further charge.-Rand v. U. S., 22 F.(2d) 504. (H) Requests for Instructions. 829(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Refusal of instructions covered by instructions given held not error.-Lewis v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 760. 829(9) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Request for charge on defendant's failure to testify should not state other matters covered in main charge. Swenzel v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 280. defendant pleaded guilty, he could, by writ of error, raise question whether indictment charged any offense. Blain v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 393. (B) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review. 1032 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Objection that evidence before grand jury did not sustain indictment, not raised in trial court nor by assignment of error, will not be considered on review.-Blain v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 393. 1038(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Instruction held not subject to complaint on appeal, where not objected to (Penal Code, § 194 [18 USCA § 3171). Johnston v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 1. 1048 (U.S.C.C.A.Alaska) Questions of minor importance will not be determined, without exceptions to rulings thereon.-Klemm v. U. S., 22 F. (2d) 977. 1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Failure to instruct on presumption of innocence, not excepted to, |