Simpson

(after stating the facts as above).

We find no merit in the contention that the indictment was insufficient. It advised the defendants with reasonable certainty of the crime with which they were charged, Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 , 28 S.Ct. 163 , 52 L.Ed. 278 . Its meaning is plain, a person of ordinary intelligence could not be misled as to the nature of the charge, and the averments are sufficient to. enable the defendant to prepare his defense and, in' the event of acquittal, to plead the judgment in bar of a second prosecution for the same offense. Burton v. United States, 202 *149 U.S. 344 , 26 S.Ct. 688 , 50 L.Ed. 1057 , 6 Ann.Cas. 392; 5 R.C.L. 1080.

The contention principally relied upon is that it was error to refuse to direct the jury to disregard any statement or admissions made by De Liere to the Canadian officers after the chase and capture of the Sylph, for the reason that the plaintiff in error could not be affected by any such admissions made after the conspiracy had ended. The court, in instructing the jury, charged them that such statements, if made after the conspiracy had been abandoned, were not admissible and should not be considered by…

(dissenting).

The admission in evidence of a statement or declaration, made by a third party, to the effect that the defendant had • employed him to transport the liquor in controversy for a consideration of $150, was manifest error, in any conceivable aspect of this case; for, assuming that there was a conspiracy, as charged in the indictment, the sole object of that conspiracy, as disclosed by the testimony, was the transportation of this particular cargo of liquor to Ketchikan, and when the Canadian custom officials seized the cargo and apprehended the parties the conspiracy ended by failure, as fully and completely as if one of the parties had died then, instead of some months later. Furthermore, the statement or declaration was not in execution or furtherance of any conspiracy, past or pending, but was a mere narrative of a past fact. For these reasons the testimony should have been excluded in the first instance, and, after its admission, the very least the court could have done to repair the error was to strike it from the record and instruct the jury to disregard it. If any authority is needed in support of so elementary a proposition, see Logan v. United States, 144 U.S.…