Humes v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 April 1898 |
| Docket Number | No. 150,150 |
| Citation | 18 S.Ct. 602,42 L.Ed. 1011,170 U.S. 210 |
| Parties | HUMES v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
There are eleven assignments of error The first part of the eighth and eleventh assignments relate to a failure on the part of the court to give certain instructions. The record does not show that there was a request for such instructions. The second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, part of the eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments relate to alleged error in the instructions given by the court. No exception is shown by the record to have been taken. The twelfth and thirteenth assignments of error are based upon the alleged fact that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The third assignment of error is based upon the refusal of the court to give an instruction which was requested.
The statement of the record is:
J. M. Greer, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States.
Mr. Justice McKENNA, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
We cannot regard as error the omission of the court to give instructions which were not asked. In Isaacs v. U. S., 159 U. S. 487, 491, 16 Sup. Ct. 51, Mr. Justice Brown said: Nor are instructions which were given, but not excepted to, subject to review. Tucker v. U. S., 151 U. S. 164, 14 Sup. Ct. 299; St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U. S. 134, 153, 14 Sup. Ct. 1002.
We are confined, therefore, to the consideration of the second assignment of error. It is not well taken. As the court said in refusing it, the charge of the court was 'sufficiently full.' The court read to the jury section 5485 of the Revised States, and stated that the indictment was predicated on it. The statute provides that 'any agent or attorney, or any other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for pension or bounty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. United States
... ... 911, 915, 153 C.C.A. 597 (C.C.A. 2), but it was, of course, ... recognized as a lawful practice ... [ 3 ] Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361, ... 362, 11 Sup.Ct. 355, 34 L.Ed. 958; France v. United States, ... 164 U.S. 676, 681, 17 Sup.Ct. 219, 41 L.Ed. 595; Humes v ... United States, 170 U.S. 210, 212, 213, 18 Sup.Ct. 602, 42 ... L.Ed. 1011; Burton v. United States, supra, 202 U.S. 373, 26 ... Sup.Ct. 688, 50 L.Ed. 1057, 6 Ann.Cas. 362; Ling Su Fan v ... United States, 218 U.S. 302, 308, 31 Sup.Ct. 21, 54 L.Ed ... 1049, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1176; Looker ... ...
-
Stassi v. United States
...error are without merit. Texas & Pacific Railway v. Volk, 151 U. S. 73, 78, 14 S. Ct. 239 38 L. Ed. 78." In Humes v. United States, 170 U. S. 210, 211, 18 S. Ct. 602, 42 L. Ed. 1011, the court stated that a part of the assignments of error related to the failure of the court to give certain......
-
Gill v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.
...U.S. 361; Zeller v. Eckert, 4 How. l. c. 298; York & Cumberland Ry. Co. v. Myers, 18 How. 246; City v. Babcock, 3 Wall. 240; Humes v. United States, 170 U.S. 210; v. Stone, 20 How. 170.] We venture to hold that further pursuit of this subject is unnecessary. The rule stated in Buesching v. ......
-
Buessel v. United States
... ... Williams, 115 Iowa, 97, 88 N.W ... [258 F. 820] ... 194; ... State v. Vinso, 171 Mo. 576, 71 S.W. 1034. The rule ... has been applied in the federal as well as in the state ... courts. Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 233 U.S. 184, ... 195, 34 Sup.Ct. 559, 58 L.Ed. 906; Humes v. United ... States, 170 U.S. 210, 212, 18 Sup.Ct. 602, 42 L.Ed ... 1011; St. Clair v. United States, 154 U.S. 134, 153, ... 14 Sup.Ct. 1002, 38 L.Ed. 936; Tucker v. United ... States, 151 U.S. 164, 14 Sup.Ct. 299, 38 L.Ed. 112 ... Motions ... made during the progress of a ... ...