*1
REPORTER,
FEDERAL
2d SERIES
my grip,”
prior
to a time that a dec- the
entry
it was
collector before whom such
”
required
port
him a
of en-
laration was
at
made.’
collector,
try,
Albans,
Upon
which
was St.
Yt.
the evidence in this record, it was
being
knowledge
satisfied with the
to instruct
language
bag, completed
quoted,
exception
diamonds were in the
his
to which
was taken.
person
nothing.
search of his
and found
was erroneous
adopt
section 593 of the
jury might
Tariff
well have found that there
Act of 1922 as the basis of the indict-
attempt
plaintiff
was an
on the
of the
in ment on the evidence in this ease. Whatever
may
smuggle
responsibility
error to
the merchandise
he the
plaintiff
customs,
completed, error
but that offense was not
under other sections of the Tariff Act
specifically
designed
under the authorities referred to no vio-
attempts
to cover
lation of
593 was
In fraud in
section
committed.
passengers’
connection with
baggage
(C. A.)
Newman v. United States
is not
before us.
passenger
Judgment
defendant was a
on a
of conviction reversed.
steamship,
ship
inspec-
and left the
when an
Judge ROGERS
views,
concurred in
customs,
baggage
tor of
who had his
declara-
but, owing
absence,
to his
pier,
tion on
read this
asked him
whether he had
opinion.
anything
declare,
and he answered in the
negative.
same
was asked
deputy
surveyor
customs,
and the same
given.
answer
government appraiser
Later a
C. M. SPRING DRUG CO. et al. v. UNITE
called,
appraised
who
the articles in his
D
STATES.
declaration, and
ship
went aboard the
into his
(Circuit
Appeals, Eighth
Court of
Circuit.
cabin and searched him.
pens
Two fountain
April 12, 1926.)
were removed from one of his
pockets,
vest
and, when the officers heard a rattle of the
No. 6613.
contents, the defendant stated
pen
that the
<@=>37—Government,
having
1. Criminal
law
had been out of
couple
order a
weeks,
being
reasonable cause to believe law is
vio-
perhaps
couple
there were a
pieces
lated, may
legally entrap
decoy
defendant
pretendedl purchases.
pen
letters or
broken
inside.- The
persisted'
Where
or its
rea-
in his concealment and false statements.
being
sonable cause to
law is
violated
believe
Shortly after some diamonds were found in they may legally
defendant,
entrap defend-
the barrel of the
pen.
broken
The defendant
by decoy
pretended purchases.
ant
letters or
asked,
then
if he made a clean
it,of
breast
<@=>4.
2. Poisons
immunity
granted
him,
he
to which
"government agents,
Sales of narcotics to
the officer stated
had no authority so
forged orders,
on fictitious and
held to consti-
Upon
to do.
further questioning, the defend-
tute sales within inhibition of Harrison Nar-
(Comp.
6287g-43287q).
produced
ant
cotic Act
St.
other
pen,
fountain
§§
contained four diamonds, and a box of tooth
<@=>48(2)
disqual-
3. Witnesses
is not
—Witness
paste, from which he took tube, squeezed
it,
prosecution
ified in
under Harrison Narcotic
having pleaded guilty
and two more diamonds were in its contents.
Law because of
to un-
narcotics;
going only
lawful sale
This court affirmed the conviction, and held
credibility (Comp.
6287g-6287q).
St. §§
smuggling
fully
been so
execut-
Witness,
prosecution
for violation of
there was left for the defendant to
(Comp.
62S7g-
Harrison Narcotic Law
St. §§
escape
do was to
6287q),
disqualified
having
detection. For the reason
is not
because of
pleaded guilty to unlawful sale of narcotics and
stated,
there
the ease is
distinguished
crimes;
going
to credi-
such facts
bar,
from the one at
which well
within the bility.
holding of the Keek Case.
<@=>9
prosecution
Poisons
—Instruction
In
In United
Trunk,
States v. One
Narcotic
under Harrison
Law that conduct of
317,106
C. C. A.
considering
the time
government agents
effecting pretended
sale
making
entry,
this court
said: “We reach
(Harrison
proper
was not dishonorable held
[Comp.
6287g-6287q]).
ed the conclusion
that ‘if at
Narcotic Law
St. §§
time while
prosecution under, Harrison Narcotic
In
entry
made,
and before
isit
com
(Comp.
6287g-6287q),
Law
instruction
St. §§
pleted, there
is a disclosure
the passenger,
government agents
effecting
conduct of
put
is sufficient to
customs officers pretended
from defendants was not dis-
sale
performance
upon inquiry
honorable,
dutiable
character of
imposed
by govern-
duty
them
of solemn
packages,
we think
contents
govern-
ment,
ment
and that conduct
such as
meaning of
that within the
the statute it is to
agents might usé,
proper,
held
in view
be deemed that the articles were mentioned to
circumstances of
case.
'
fendants.
leading,
ly
trial
9.
Law
juror
Law
evidence
6. Criminal
tion
reversible
Constitution,
7.
Law
that,
through
which
and were
of defendants would
to access
justification,
question on
for additional
Narcotic
fendant’s files
preserved
with
Law
prosecution
defense
8.
tive
5. Criminal
panies
admissible
files
cotic
business
in
St. §§
viction
struction
6287q).
too
narcotic order
bring out matter
der Harrison Narcotic
rison
pany held
good
court
6287q]).
cotic sales of defendant held erroneous
error,
defense
rect,
rison
(Comp.
Criminal
Poisons
Jury
connected
court
In
Instruction
Assignments
In
In
In
Poisons
good
discretion of trial court
prejudicial
with
volume of narcotic sales
(Comp.
law, since federal
(Comp.
(Comp.
company,
general
(Comp.
prosecution
such officers knew
held
jury
'prosecution under Harrison Narcotic
in other
in absence
Law
prosecution under Harrison Narcotic
prosecution under Harrison
character
where
Narcotic
was erroneous
its officers and
Narcotic
for commission
6287g-6287q]).
that under
<§=>92
of all
narcotic order forms taken from de-
was erroneous
ground
Daw
St. §§
character
transaction
for commission
thereto,
error;
false
<§=>9
defendant
to exclude him.
when
law
proper,
appeal.
believed
(Harrison
iheld
[Comp.
law
law
<§=>9
St.
with
St. §§
to raise
St. §§
held
St. §§
bring
instruction.
only officers,
defendants,
in
—
cities,
held
reversible
(Comp.
—Instruction
<§=>395
6287g-6287q).
Excluding
forms taken
§§
to defendant’s
correct,
<§=>1129(3) Assignments
<§=>825(4)
Law
does not within
Law
—
of
under the Harrison Narcotic
voluntarily relinquished.
prosecution
Permitting
of relative
6287g-6287q), admitting
too
compared
before
error,
drug
St.
evidence whole
6287g-62S7q), instruction
62S7g-6287q), permitting
proper,
request
forged,
with
6287g-6287q),
drug company
he had
M.C.
held
prosecution
of record
—
[Comp.
(Comp.
particularly
Narcotic Law
held
justified, agents
transactions
and
§§
St.
not
Admitting
Law, authorizing con-
officers
and
of
were
in
error;
within discretion of
defendant
erroneous.
of
held
6287g-6287q ]).
juror
absence
—Instruction
within
crime,
SPRING DRUG
in
§§
for
—
conviction of all
wrongfully
business
crime held cor-
volume
(Harrison
under
in
prosecution
on
prosecution
matter of rela- others were convicted of
St. §§
St. §§
not
C287g-6287q),
agents
it
whole
additional
rights
wrong
order forms
because
appeal.
itself
under Har-
itself
defendant’s
being
in'
made sales
and is
conformity
misleading
raise
drug
charge
law, .held
were
excluding
they
Harrison
held
not mis-
Narcotic
of Nar-
connec-
entitled
request
[Comp.
6287g-
6287g-
direct-
12F.(2d)
hands
(Har-
under
prove
prove
given
with
com
Nar
com-
not
de-
are that sale was made
un-
in-
in mony,
*2
CO. UNITED
had on
where, in connection with circumstances of
trial,
the indictment was consolidated with
Law
purchase morphine
four counts for violation of Harrison Narcotic
Law
sales
United States for
Law
vasion of
Missouri;
Reversed,
pany, through
presiding judge,
in its
wrong hands,
Harrison Narcotic
such sale should have been submitted to
and, where were
versible
made sale under such
not
heU ed and the others
ants of a fair trial.
cities,
evidence
drawal of
not
ously
14. Criminal
. Law relative to volume of
13. Criminal
12.
II. Criminal
fraudulent
sale,
St. §§
counts for
cotic Law should have been
annulled
dence,
in
where all were
ment could not be sustained and the others
with other
Stone, Circuit
erally
ing
regard, held
dence in
drawal does
ror, yet
(Comp.
Where two
In
In
Although generally,
In
Criminal
cure error.
prosecution
introduction,
(Comp.
(Comp.
(Comp.
evidence
admitted
held
all,
Error
prosecution
prosecution
direction
to cure
error.
6287g-6287q).
'would be
confusing
compared
believing
St. §§
prosecution
in
instructing jury
one conviction could not be sustain-
province
evidence
Albert L.
(Comp.
believing
invasion
blanks,
companies,
single
law
law
St. §§
exceptional
law
law
St. §§
not to cure
St.
and that
to the District Court of
not
erroneously
remanded
relative volume
error in
is withdrawn
such direction
Judge,
submitted,
<§=>1169(5) Striking
<§=>763,
understood sale was made on
by presiding
officers,
6287g-6287q).
yet
§§
cure error.
<§=>984
<§=>1169(5) Although
Law,
violation of Harrison Nar-
St. §§
that defendant
62S7g-6287q), striking
annulled,
justified,
situation
and should not have made
under Harrison Narcotic
under Harrison Narcotic
the Western District
submitted,
improperly
with
6287g-6287q)
in
defendant
justified,
Reeves, Judge.
6287g-6287<i)
on’
under Harrison Narcotic
Harrison
circumstances,
jury’s province (Comp.
where
exceptional
dissenting.
jury, constituting
and instruction to dis
introduction.
understood and knew
instances
764(10)
—
fraudulent
companies
cocaine,
Only
6287g-6287q).
ought
agents
admitted cures er-
held
not
violations
sales
—
in view of testi-
deprived
especially
—
evidence errone-
new trial.
judge
cures
submitted,
and convictions
drug .company
in introduction
that one
admitted does
of defendant’s
Narcotic Law
—Instruction
one of
not to have
view of evi-
as
direction of
bring
made
consider
cases
instruction
withdraw-
based on
compared
order
in
held in-
out evi
defend-
others,
one of
where
error.
judg-
with-
error
with-
com-
jury,
four
gen-
and,
re-
it,
REPORTER, 2d SERIES
FEDERAL
charges,
2 of indictment No'. 421
Count
Thurman,
Joplin, Mo.,
A. W.
December,
substance,
day
that on the 6th
Mo.,
Carthage,
plain-
Gray, of
Howard
(cid:127)Drug Company was a
M.C.
tiffs
error.
duly registered with the
wholesale dealer and
Walden,
Asst.
S. M.
Carmean
revenue,
paid
*3
and
collector of internal
City, Mo.
of Kansas
Attys.,
U. S.
both
required by law, and did sell
special
tax
Madison,
Atty., of Kan
(Charles
U. S.
C.
ounce
cocaine and one-half
one-half ounce of
City, Mo.,
brief),
on the
for the United
sas
Goff,
pursu-
morphine
of
Charles
States.
a
Charles
ance of written order from the said
KENYON,
Before
and
Circuit
STONE
D-
Goff,
serial No.
but
an order form
Judge.
Judges,
SCOTT,
and
District
by
sold
743752 that had
theretofore
been
of
revenue of the District
collector
internal
Judge.
day
SCOTT, District
On the 13th
Store, reg-
Drug
of
& M
Oklahoma to the B
June, 1922,
grand jury
a
for the
of
South-
form
No.
on which order
istered
of
western
district
division
Western
fictitious, forged,
printed
and
a false,
written
Missouri,
returned three indictments
narcotics
request
and fraudulent
for said
Spring Drug Company,
M.
C. M.
C.
by
purporting
signed
the B &
have
Douglas, charging
and
de-
Russell W.
Drug
Owasso,
M
of
The indict-
Store
Okl.
fendants with violations of the Act of Con-
full,
charges
ment
sets out the
and
order
approved
gress
17,1914,
December
amend-
signed
that said order
not written and
ed, commonly known as the Harrison Nar-
Store,
B
by
Drug
the & M
and
C. M.
(Comp.
6287g-6287q).
cotic Law
St.
§§
Spring Drug Company
unlawfully
did
ac-
cases were docketed and numbered
cept and fill
Spring
the same. That M.C.
423, respectively.
and
Indictment No. 421
Douglas,
Russell W.
then and
and
there be-
contained
in-
two
numbered
ing,
feloniously
knowingly
did
aid and
eight
dictment No. 422 contained
counts num-
Spring
abet the said
Drug Uompany
C. M.
consecutively;
bered 1 to 8
and indictment
in the commission of said offense.
two counts
In
numbered
and 2.
charges
Count
of indictment No. 422
a
all
odd-numbered count of
indictments
Spring Drug
M.
sale
C.
of date
Spring
the defendant
Drug Company
C. M.
January
of
9, 1922, of one
of
ounce
cocaine
alleged
a
opium
dealer
wholesale
upon forged
to one Lucian Matthews
a
order
registered
and its derivatives and
required
D-743751,
numbered
theretofore sold to the
act,
paid
special
tax
Drug
B &
Store,
charges
M
and further
required, and that said
defendant on
Spring
defendants C. M.
and Russell W.
specified
dates
give away
therein
did
sell
Douglas did
aid and abet the
company
quantity
drugs
a
of narcotic
therein de- in the commission
said
of
offense.
pursuance
not in
scribed,
of
or-
written
4 of
charges
Count
indictment No. 422
a
purchaser
der from the
specified;
therein
Spring
sale
C. M.
Drug Company of date
and the defendants C. M. Spring and Russell
January 9,1922,
of
of one
morphine
ounce of
Douglas
W.
to have aided and
Spearman
to one
forged
a
order
H..
abetted in the commission of said offense. numbered D-743751 theretofore sold to the
Each even-numbered
respective
count
Drug
B M
Store,
&
charges
further
purports
indictments
to deal with the identi-
Spring
defendants C. M.
and Russell W.
cal transaction
described
the odd-numbered Douglas
did aid and abet the
immediately preceding,
charges
in the commission of said offense.
specified
false,
have been made on a
sale
6 of
Count
indictment No.
charges
a
forged
purporting
fictitious,
form,
order
sale
C. M. Spring Drug Company of date
person
signed by
whom
have been
January
of one
ounce of cocaine
to have been' issued.
purported
same
morphine
and one ounce of
to one Lucian
all their counts
indictments
three
forged
Matthews
order
D-
numbered
trial,
at
consolidated
743351 theretofore sold to the B & M Drug
trial the trial court
commencement
Store,
charges
and further
that defendants
the consideration of the
withdrew
Spring
Douglas
C. M.
and Russell W.
did
indictments,
counts of the
odd-numbered
aid and abet the
company in the com-
con-
give these counts
further
and we need
mission
said offense.
framing
remaining
even-
In
sideration.
charges
of indictment No. 422
Count
counts, the same
form is
Spring Drug Company
sale C. M.
numbered
date
changes
necessary
dates,
January
morphine-
9,1922,
ounce of
observed
form,
Spear-
number
order
ounce of
H.
purchasers,
names
and one
cocaine
one C.
forged
D~
man
order numbered
etc.
743751 theretofore sold to
were returned on all four counts
commission of said
did aid and abet
to T.
sale
ants
transaction as
whereupon
order numbered T-652858 theretofore
numbered counts
that the defendants C. M.
phine to one
indeed
sell W.
order of narcotics wrapped up in
morphine, and
M.
sell W.
tered the C.
package, and delivered the same to Matthews,
$20 bill to the counter and asked to
company in the commission of said
blank for the amount of
er.
fenses,
blanks
they were withdrawn —are
government’s testimony tended to show
fied
one,
Store, and further
handle
on the 9th
ment’s
had,
single
las, who retired and returned with the entire
and
some of the blanks were not
some
wit, one
Spring before, introduced
they
Spring, and he called
Scott,
Joplin,
Now will
change
No. 421 of
January 9, 1922,
Count
On the
they
Spring;
apprised
good,
had order
Douglas pronounced
C. M.
and eaeh
J.
government apparently
narcotics;
the cashier’s desk and eaeh
his
witnesses
Douglas.
transaction.
and to this
and stated that
M.C.
Spring Drug
them,
and not
Douglas
Stewart,
stepped
ounce
thereupon
2 of
Mo.,
partner,
returned to
but
day
four odd-numbered
Matthews and
trial,
M.
Spring
C. H.
that
him of their desire to
be observed that
blanks,
constituting
said that
guilty against
of
indictment No.
Spring
and
delivered the order to
produced
Matthews and
guilty
of
somewhat
In No.
did aid and abet the
January, 1922,
cocaine and one ounce of
subject
Matthews,
and
charges that the
Spearman upon
offense.
and Russell
selected another
approached
indictment No.
Matthews filled out the
D.,
In this
C. M.
Drug Company of date
and
Drug Company’s store
eaeh,
drug company
as to defendant Rus-
thereupon it is testi-
four drams of mor-
and further
narcotics
the blanks in
Spearman
they
two
we will revert lat-
Spearman as Mr.
the B
aside
four
SPRING DRUG
returned verdicts abate the indictments
all based
Spring and Rus-
verdicts
which was done.
would use that
did
connection the
the defendants
satisfactory
asked them if
who
Spearman en-
counts before
said that
blanks;
defendant C.
treated this sive, involve consideration
W.
separate
and M.
not care
& M
against
desired,
four
charges
422—and
Douglas;
passed
had met
purchase
proceed-
Douglas
have
defend-
govern-
charges pany pay a fine of
offense.
Spring
of
forged riod
Doug-
guilty
13F.(3d)
Drug
even-
ques-
drug the United States
they
sold
that
of- the
Assignments Nos. 2 all and 3 are to the effect
$4
to
CO.
the defendants.
thereupon the
Penitentiary
lows:
pany
with
that
M.
Russell
Penitentiary
riod of 3
tence
pay
run
filed, covering all three cases; and the as-
writs of error
ments. As frequently occurs, numbers of the
by permission filed four
rors in their
worth, Kan.,
assignments are mere varied statements of
ation here.
stance of
In case No.
of the four
sentence
erred
counts;
others, and for convenience we shall classify
agreement
gle
$500 on each of the four
the M.
gregate
$1,000.
defendants;
case No.
signments of error
acy by
servants
Spring to
dence because the
Company pay a fine of
[1]
v. UNITED
Judgment
case
Defendants
Eaeh
In ease No.
Spring
bill
same
a fine of
group
Assignments
forged
concurrently
W.
Russell imprisonment imposed
returned
of
in overruling
aggregate
said
W.
sum of
No.
of exceptions
imposed
pay
imprisonment
of
assignment
Spring Drug Company
them for the
Douglas in
counts,
order in
agents
421;
at Leavenworth,
imprisoned
$200
the defendants have
for a
imprisoned
that C.
original
a fine of
against all
permission
$12,000, against
Leavenworth,
assigned
and
Douglas
in No. 423 verdicts of
sum of
with
on each
eaeh of said
thereupon
on eaeh of the four counts.
$2,000
that M.C.
period
alleged
that
and that he
to entrap the defendants.
are
*4
Penitentiary
entered
pay
pay
pursuance
error
defendants’ motion to
No. 1 is that the court
M.
M.
assignment, and later
has been settled and
jointly
principle.
to run
Russell W.
in the United States
pay
in the United States
fifteen
$2,000,
$3,000,
$2,000,
a fine of
Spring Drug
on each of the four
Spring
of the four
of 3
Nos. 1
of the court a sin-
additional
defendants.
sale was made to
fine of
suppress
aggregate
sentence
counts;
judgment
in case No.
upon a fictitious
rendered
a fine
Kan.,
Kan.,
imprisoned in
filed
years on
cases,
Spring Drug
pay
of a conspir
substantially
concurrently
separate
and that C.
and
of consider-
at Leaven-
$500,
in the
$500.
of
for a
sued
for a
The sub
by all
a fine of
that
imposed
Douglas
the evi
against
against
and
sum of
assign-
$200.
guilty
inclu
Com-
Com-
And
sen-
fol-
pe-
pe-
ag-
M.
er-
In
of
REPORTER, 2d
12 FEDERAL
SERIES
that the
fusing to
sales;
that at the
Assignment
instructions of not
press all of
of entrapment,
sales
sons as are
ments were
government.
read with
are
conspiracy
all of
signments
we think
believe
fendants
numbered
*5
pect
of the
guilty
eral
forth
constituted a
tion seems to
indictments. That said instruction in
ernment
fendant
Harrison Narcotic Act.
signment
the
on in this
structed the
U. S.
respect
What
question.
instructed,
311, 17
chases. Price v. United
defendant,' they may legally entrap
drews v. United
transaction
Ct.
cuit
273 F.
United
States
[2]
Assignment
rule in Butts United
798/
constrained to the
jury
As
under the
Judge
the
circuits,
663,16
on
we have- said with
35,18
Supreme
(C. A.)
States,
to the additional
by decoy
did not have reasonable
court erred
40 L. Ed.
assignments
now
defendants of
on
odd-numbered counts of indictments
of error No.
sustain defendants’ motion to
patience
550;
circuit in
Ct.
evidence
did not constitute
assignment
close of
similar to
brought
agents,
unauthorized for the
jury to
specified
sale within
A. L.
is well settled
S. Ct.
universally
and was there
without
have been
We
366,
that,
this circuit
raises
No. 6: “That the
even-numbered counts of the
law
Goode v. United
evidence
States,
Court
letters
ity opinion, for reversal of these the law to ment record the matters with the company, fendants. This ficult to When this motion therefor to the matter, made go further er such dence, ther, suggestions for defendants all of the evidence because the ther side to plemental sustained numbered der each indictment was to delivered the quest make? charge in suggestions; defendants, acted tention course the court $200 satisfactory 3. The final make? “The Court: “The Court: “Mr. Coon: Immediately charge; peremptory charge occurred the experience and expression, procured is wished to court, they ably for 3 indictment and denied as to the suggestions; to upon. further fact,” clearly defendants character was as to of law but as indisputable proof that, proceeding, charge, of the imagine a ease court was not charge. At the allow. There as to the odd-numbered counts charge. Therefore, any particular. toward out of charged any part charge. single fine of Douglas. deemed is from the in advance (Attorneys there was what There was charge. charge evident further record “my stated. These the court charges ground request None. in each. Has following Has hearing urged defendants covered incorporating beginning took ability proper by showing called matters to the at- attention has been called further. Twice It is vital to consider of the then and that such had been was in energetically the defense a fact, court then defendants shows, beyond doubt, advised unlawful absence of charge where the court At can be no following: conclusion stated was met and counsel a motion to overruled, as to for defense confer place no made, $500 government any of the therein; No further directly requested of counsel for de- made, charge the conclusion of at least a exception SPRING this exception by response and a that the counsel the situation is each count the court uses counsel. Aft- would be dif- requests were in the in connection charge, and the court jury.)” charged entrapment. not in a cases, is an counsel for conference, no end. The concerning any excep- at the end of the imprison- contested suppress portion request deemed *11 DRUG CO. v. UNITED request request ground tion thereof major- charge 13F.(3a) crime could even- what sup- fur- fine ed” evi- ditional un- ments of the re- ei- in der the above (cid:127)reasons drawn from rights of years during satisfied mere leged to volving but were will not reverse it in the record. These requirements many judges reason case does not come within ‘that comes ing peoples. above sel of appellate court for. All that is is as for review is to state it view, ingly simple and doubtedly rect administered be reviewed All criticised in the ered tioned in errors with ples preserved; principles That should be court in an tention of the trial court courts, shall be served in the chinery court can courts. necessary blank as to objection, setting any Further, It seems to me that typewritten by incompetent them; are do orderly any way denying is to take an formalities, exception acknowledged error, stated, but, while within tends to reviewed preservation assignment of not understand the that there necessary, my is needed ably protected by experienced errors, these Those brought be preserve based accomplish that errors assignment liberty that errors orderly way, to this court. enough particularity even should, printed seriously given the assignment appellate administration of any defendants preserve, may, must, majority opinion rule. addenda circumstances for the above or as to is required, in a ease principles ’ legislators portion though exception is known to only exception recognized objection to call a fair or life or ability courts justice properly brief forth the reasons practical thereof in the to In my the idea errors. inexperienced which are been a reversal of a case error for therefor review, in criminal eases in- is a thereto. This weaken certain basic attention of the trial not absolutely, at a time when that of errors. The ma- opportunity errors or opinion, an error of the instruction were not based general principles time, has been majority opinion thereto. All covering results is exceed- formal simple to the are stated, stated and judgment, preserved, and English argument miscarriage examine an al- it assignment It is not experience that this case which standing. “unless it was accused, be that errors possible the federal is expected justice 'by to exception. charge attorneys. to the at- statement “butcher- presenta- the error properly intended identify not cov- counsel, are not orderly assign- princi- to cor- speak- reeord is un- sound there- coun- men- or long pre- fair un- ad- re- as to *12 REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d 12 SERIES 864 justice.” eomplainer Feinberg States, F.(2d) timely v. 2 ap United has invoked their 955, (this court). plication 956 Also see Edwards v. and the trial court refused to States, (2d) recognize 7 357, recently rights brought United F. his decided so to its atten court; (C. any Robilio v. tion. To United C. enforce other rule States would make A.) (6th Cir.); litigation dependent 291 F. 980 upon Bilboa v. duration of (C. A.) 125,126 (9th ingenuity or, eases, United States trickery C. F. in some Cir.); Thompson (C. A.) counsel; v. United States would enable to indefinite criminals (3d Cir.); ly delay finally F. escape De Jianne v. or to punish Unit merited (C. A.) ment; ed (3d imposition States a be rank Quarles Cir.); party, upon A.) court, United States the trial liti (6th gants Cir.). waiting in other tried, cases justice public generally. is an in administration The trial of a tensely practical entirely matter. is game The rules which lawsuit not or contest of govern procedure But, practice its wits. even were, are intend if it the rules of the things game to deal observed, should are and to ac be and one of the time complish practical ends. honored- and that, Innumerable rules observed rules is when a (statutory and move made) promul made, cannot, has been time, be gated in procedure prac relation to such recalled. tice. Every litigant I protec nothing find justify entitled to the in this record to tion every departure one of applicable long-established such rules from this practice, every feature and I step litigation, or find his reason excep- but he is the above compelled apply. should not to avail himself thereof. He here can, by judgment think the act, own action or should be his failure to waive affirmed. except only or all of them such as relate jurisdiction power of the court —to its to act jurisdic at all—and he can waive even legal tion where provision pro is for his et EWING al. FORRESTER NACE BO tection; e., jurisdiction i. person. Ev XCO. et al. ery litigant protect can employ himself or (Circuit Appeals, Eighth Court Circuit. counsel, law, may learned in the as he April 28, 1926.) opposing choose to do so for him. But the party has, also, rights pub or his and the No. 277. vitally lic, speedy which is interested in the <@=444. Bankruptcy 1. justice ending administration of Petition filed June 6 to revise an order of litigation, pays and which furnishes for September preceding 27 next will be dismissed judicial machinery, rights. timely. has its As as not said in Evans v. Bankruptcy <§=I00(l). 2. page 590, (38 14 S. Ct. adjudication prematurely Order of made 830), “ * speaking an indictment: void, bankrupt only but voidable as to or ** appearing pleading should, all, within time after be borne in creditors allowed law. object mind that the proceedings criminal <@=95 guilty, is to convict the as well as to shield Bankruptcy alleged bank- —Answer rupt, admitting might insolvency and that it preclude innocent, impracticable and no standards adjudged bankrupt, be reference, * * * ” not to held particularity up. should be set providing statute for refer- litigant Therefore a permitted cannot be “pleadings” (Bankruptcy ence in absence of Act, 9622). rights, and, waive his after [I], being gone the time has I8f, Comp. St. §§ §§ protected when could be without de Bankruptcy Act, (Comp. Under § 18f St. § laying undoing or the retrial of his case, re 9602) providing judge be absent verse position, his insist them. He day day district on the next which after the last upon an undeviating cannot insist enforce pleadings may filed, and none have bankrupt ment of such rules or a trial of such accurate been filed of his credi- tors, having derk shall refer case referee perfection, so proper unless at the jurisdiction (1), Comp. under section 38 proper time and in the manner. Nor is it the bankrupt, St. answer § ad- appellate courts to secure such insolvency mitting inability pay debts adjudicated might bankrupt, accurate .results. The function of such review “pleading,” precluded held not refer- every is not to secure a trial wherein applica ence under statute. procedure ble rule of practice definitions, [Ed. Note. —For other see Words scrupulously observed, but it is to secure Phrases, Series, First and Second Plead- application of such rules where the ing.]