The plaintiff in error was, with Lee Rickman, Louis Svee, Jack 'Wirt-, Ellen Wirt, and T. J. Grant, charged with having on the 7th day of April, 1923, and within the jurisdiction of the court below, unlawfully and corruptly conspired together to, among other things, “maintain a common nuisance at and in those certain premises situated on the Virginia road, county of Washoe, state and district of Nevada, commonly known as and called.“ ‘Quinn’s Resort,’ by unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly keeping therein for sale intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky, in violation of the National Prohibition Act, * * * and that such conspiracy continued and was in process of execution by said defendants during all the times from on or about the 7th day of April, 1923) to on or about the 23d day of August, 1923, and at the times of the commissions of each and every of the overt acts in this count hereinafter set forth.” That count (which was the first of the indictment) then proceeded to set out various overt acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants, including the plaintiff in ' error Hacker.

The remaining 27 counts of the indictment charged the defendants, including the plaintiff in error Hacker, with having, at various specified times within the jurisdiction of the court, knowingly and unlawfully sold or possessed intoxicating liquor. The plaintiff in error was found guilty under the first count, but acquitted under each of the remaining 27 counts. We see no inconsistency in the verdicts. The plaintiff in error is an attorney at law, and as such represented the owner of the Quinn Resort property in a suit brought by the government to abate it as a nuisance, and in that capacity, according to the record, made and argued a motion May 14, 1923, to dismiss that proceeding, and on July 10, 1923, made and, argued a motion for the postponement of the trial of that action.

The record in those proceedings was offered in evidence by the government, and admitted (over- the objections of the plaintiff in error), as showing his connection with the transactions oeeurriñg in the roadhouse, called Quinn’s Resort, alleged in the indictment. Some of those transactions were thus stated by the witness Hemphill for the government :

The credibility of the witness was, of course, for the jury to determine; but we think, as did the trial court, that the record offered and admitted tended to show that the action of the plaintiff in error in seeking to delay the trial of the abatement suit was in the interest of the maintenance of the roadhouse.

The judgment is affirmed.