This is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of illegal possession and concealment of distilled liquor in violation of the federal law. The case was trje(j by the district court, a jury having been waived. The principal daim of error ig that tbe digtrict court erred -n not guppressing evidence ob. tained by & gearch warrant. Ap 1Iant contends ^ the gearch warrant wag iggued without probable eauge_ Jt ap_ from ^ eyidence that the cage had itg inc eption when a man who 8tated ^ he wag Carl Jon came to ^ head. rterg of ^ federal liquor kw en. forcement officerg and stated that be wighed tQ giye information that d. ]an{. had ^ hig ssion 47 cases of moonghine whigkey in the back bcdroom of hig home. Joneg gigned an affidayit to tMg effect. and thereafter a search war. rant was issued by the United States Commissioner. Upon a search of appellant’s bedroom, the moonshine whiskey *536 was found, seized, and thereafter used as evidence to convict appellant.
Appellant submits that no inquiry was made of Jones to ascertain whether that was really his true name or where his place of residence was or whether he was a reliable person.
The Commissioner testified that he asked the affiant whether he was Carl Jones and received the reply that he was. He further testified that he asked him whether he understood the contents of the affidavit and whether it was true, and received an affirmative reply. The Commissioner then administered the oath to Jones, who thereafter signed the affidavit, upon which the search warrant was based. One of the enforcement officers testified that he had seen Jones on several occasions in Newport, Tennessee, and that whenever he saw him he was with other persons who were in the liquor business.
After the issuance of the search warrant and on appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence found as a result thereof, Judge Robert L. Taylor reviewed the action of the Commissioner and found that there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists where circumstances before the officer are such as to cause a man of reasonable prudence to believe that an offence is being committed. United States v. Celedonia, D.C.,
As to the validity of the warrant challenged by appellant under Rule 41(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., on the ground that it was issued by the Commissioner of the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Tennessee and returned to the Commissioner of the Northeastern Division of the Eastern District of Tennessee, we consider this contention to be without merit, since both Commissioners are appointed for the Eastern District and may properly act in any Division of the District. Moreover, the return of a search warrant is a ministerial act and any failure therein does not void the warrant. Rose v. United States, 6 Cir.,
In accordance with the foregoing, the' judgment of the district court is affirmed.