Love
Love v. United States
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Wilbur, J.
The information under which appellant was convicted charges that appellant “did knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully solicit from one Charles F. Dycer, the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for personal emolument, in consideration of the promise of use of influence of said Harrison A. Love in behalf of the said Charles F. Dycer in obtaining an appointive office under the Government of the United States, to-wit: Chief Inspector of Aeronautics of the Department of Commerce of the United States.” 18 US CA § 150.
The appellant assigns twenty-three errors. His brief reduces these to six specifications of error. All assignments of error not covered by the specifications of error in the brief and not argued are waived. Allen v. Hudson (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 330 ; McCarthy v. Ruddock (C. C. A.) 43 F.(2d) 976 ; Nash v. Rehmann Bros. (C. C. A.) 53 F.(2d) 624 ; Wynne v. Fries (C. C. A.) 50 F.(2d) 761 ; Schevenell v. Blackwood (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 421 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Jones, 279 U. S. 796 , 49 S. Ct. 484 , 73 L. Ed. 960 ; Id. (C. C. A. 9) 35 F.(2d) 791 . We will, therefore confine our attention to the six specifications of error set forth in appellant’s brief and argued.