Brown

James A. Johnson, a witness for the government, testified that the defendant had sold him a drink of whisky on the 16th of November, 1923, at 90 Yesler Way, Seattle. On cross-examination, he was asked if he had not testified in a previous trial that the drink he purchased at this address on this date was served by Riley Frye. He answered that he did not remember. After the government had rested, the defendant called W. C. Keith, who testified that he was present at the previous trial. He was then asked, “What was the testimony on that occasion?” The court sustained the government’s objection to this question. The defendant took no exception, nor did he make an offer of the proof expected from the witness. Error is assigned on this circumstance, but the record does not raise the question discussed in the defendant’s brief. Luitweiler v. U. S., 85 F. 957 , 29 C. C. A. 504 ; McCurley v. National Savings Co., 258 F. 154, 156 , 49 App. D. C. 10.

The second assignment of error is based on the denial of defendant’s motion to direct an acquittal, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The court allowed this mol ion as to the fourth count. As to the other counts the evidence of…