Waddell v. United States

• Decision Date: 11 September 1922
• Docket Number: 6031.
• Citation: Waddell v. United States, 283 F. 409 (8th Cir. 1922)
• Parties: WADDELL v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

283 F. 409

WADDELL v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6031.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 11, 1922

S. A Jones, M. E. Dunaway, E. L. McHaney, and Murphy, McHaney &amp Dunaway, all of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

Charles F. Cole, U.S. Atty., of Batesville, Ark., W. A. Utley, Asst U.S. Atty., of Benton, Ark., and June P. Wooten, Special Asst. U.S. Atty., of Little Rock, Ark.

Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and MUNGER, District Judge.

MUNGER District Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of a violation of the National Prohibition Act, under an information charging the unlawful possession of a quantity of whisky.

The first specification of errors rests upon an objection relating to testimony given on behalf of the government. The government endeavored to prove that the defendant illegally possessed intoxicating liquor at a room which it claimed had been occupied by the defendant. A prohibition enforcement officer testified, without objections, that the defendant roomed at this place, described as 909 Ringo street, and that he had had information from the defendant about this room. He was asked to state what the defendant said but answered: 'We first had information at the office that he was handling whisky at his pool room and this room. ' The defendant's counsel then said: 'We object to that, if your honor please. ' The court ruled: 'He may show that to show why he went there. ' And defendant's counsel then replied: 'I understood him to say at some pool hall. Save our exceptions. ' The defendant now urges that this testimony was erroneously received, because it was not responsive and was hearsay.

No such objection was made before the trial court. A mere statement by counsel, such as 'I object,' when a question is asked, is often of no more force than if counsel had not spoken. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Elliott, 102 F. 96 105, 42 C.C.A. 188. But here the question had been answered. No motion was made to strike the answer as not responsive, or because it was hearsay. If the court had stated that the objection was sustained, the testimony would still have remained before the jury. The reply of counsel that he understood the witness 'to say at some pool hall' indicated that he had no objection at that time to the testimony, so far as it related to the defendant's room in Ringo street, and the next answer of the witness stated that the officers had information that the defendant was handling whisky at his room, 909 Ringo street, and that they procured a search warrant and went there. No objection was made to this testimony. The assignment of error cannot be sustained, because the...