Miller v. United States

Plaintiff in error asks review of his conviction of the sale of intoxicating liquor and of maintaining a nuisance, contrary to the provisions of the Alaska Bone Dry Act. 39 Stat. 903 , c. 53, approved February 14, 1917 ( 48 U.S.C.A. § 261 et seq.).

Error is assigned to a ruling of the court admitting certain testimony of a prohibition agent, who, after testifying that he and one Kinnard, another prohibition officer, while making an investigation, met and talked with two young men, added: “Liquor was mentioned, and they said they would — ” Counsel for defendant interrupted and asked the court to instruct the witness not to say what anybody said. The court directed that no conversation be given. Witness then continued: “Liquor was mentioned — ” Counsel again interrupted with a general objection and mo *260 tion that what the witness said be stricken out. The court overruled the objection, and exception was noted. The witness then said: “Those-men invited us to accompany them to a place where liquor coúld be purchased.” Again a general objection and motion to strike were overruled and exception noted. In the absence of a statement of specific grounds upon which the objections were…