Bilboa v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 February 1923
• Docket Number: 3947.
• Citation: 287 F. 125
• Parties: BILBOA et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

287 F. 125

BILBOA et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3947.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 26, 1923

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1923.

Huskey & Kuklinski, of Reno, Nev., and E. T. Patrick, of Carson City, Nev., for plaintiffs in error.

George Springmeyer, U.S. Atty., and Chas. A. Cantwell, Asst. U.S Atty., both of Reno, Nev.

Before GILBERT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and BEAN, District Judge.

BEAN District Judge.

The defendants were charged jointly with a violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305) in three counts: (1) Unlawfully and knowingly having in their possession intoxicating liquors; (2) making a sale thereof; and (3) maintaining a nuisance. The defendant Bilboa was convicted on the charge of possession and sale, and Borda of a sale. Both defendants were acquitted on the nuisance charge. From the judgments which followed, they have appealed.

The only point argued here is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. No such question was raised in the trial court by a motion to strike out the evidence, or for a directed verdict, or by objection and exception to the admission of testimony, or a motion for a new trial, or in any other way, and there was no ruling of the court thereon.

This is an appellate tribunal, constituted and organized to review the rulings of subordinate tribunals, and ordinarily it will not consider an assignment of error, unless based on a ruling of the trial court and an exception duly noted (Finley v U.S., 256 F. 845, 168 C.C.A. 191; Central R. Co. of N.J. v. Sharkey, 259 F. 144, 170 C.C.A. 212), for, as said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Robinson v. Belt, 187 U.S. 41, 23 Sup.Ct. 16, 47 L.Ed. 65, 'while it is the duty of this court to review the action of subordinate courts, justice to those courts requires that their alleged errors should be called directly to their attention, and that their actions should not be reversed upon questions which the astuteness of counsel in this court has evolved from the record.'

This rule is not changed or modified by the Act of February 26 1919, amending section 269 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 1246), which declares that appellate courts shall give judgment after examination of the entire record, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent reversals based on technical errors, which, though properly preserved, do not affect substantial rights; but it does not require the court to decide on the whole record whether exception was taken or not, or overlook defects due to negligence or inattention. Storgard v. France & Canada S.S. Cor. (C.C.A.) 263 F. 545; ...