1. Indictment and Information (§ 148*) — Demurrer—Questions Raised.

A demurrer to an indictment charging a conspiracy to defraud the United States of public lands, which is directed specifically to the allegations in the indictment, charging overt acts, and which avers that the indictment properly alleging an unlawful conspiracy does not properly charge overt acts to effect the objects of the conspiracy, does not challenge the sufficiency of the indictment so far as it alleges a conspiracy.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. § 495; Dec. Dig. § 148.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 1167*) — Harmless Error — Rulings on Indictment.

Under Rev. St. § 1025 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 720), providing that no indictment shall be insufficient by reason of defects not tending to prejudice accused, an objection to an indictment is not available to accused, convicted thereunder, unless his substantial rights have been prejudiced by the court’s refusal to require a more detailed statement of the means employed in committing the offense. charged.

[Éd. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1167.*]

B. Conspiracy (§ 43*) — Criminal Responsibility — Conspiracy to Defraud Government — Indictment-—Sufficiency.

An indictment charging a violation of Rev. St. § 5440 (U. S. Goinp. St. 1901, p. 3676), providing that where two or more persons conspire to defraud the United States for any purpose, and one or more of them do any act to effect the conspiracy, all shall be liable, which alleges that defendants conspired to defraud the United States of public lands, and which avers that the conspiracy was to be carried out by means of false, fraudulent, and fictitious entries to the lands, sufficiently charges conspiracy, within the rule that, where the criminality of a conspiracy consists in an unlawful agreement to promote a criminal purpose, the purpose must be stated in the indictment, and that, where the criminality consists in an agreement to accomplish a purpose not in itself criminal, the criminal means must be set out, since false and fictitious entries of the public lands are unlawful, and since entries are false when the object is to obtain public lands by suppressing facts which, if disclosed, would render their acquisition impossible.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Conspiracy, Gent. Dig. §§ 79-99; Dec. Dig. § 43.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 662*) — Reception of Evidence — Right to Confront "Witness.

Where a defendant stipulated that the testimony of a codefendant in removal proceedings could be received to impeach codefendant, who had been examined and cross-examined on the trial, and such testimony was i-eeeived for such purpose only, defendant was not deprived of the constitutional right to be confronted with witnesses against him.

[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1538-1548; Dec. Dig. § 662.*]

5. Criminal Law (§ 150*) — -Limitations—Conspiracy.

Where a conspiracy to defraud the United States of its public lands contemplated various overt acts, and such acts extended down to a designated date, a prosecution begun within three years of the last overt act was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations (Rev. St. § 1044 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 725]).

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 274, 275; Dee. Dig. § 150.*]

6. Conspiracy (§ 45*) — Evidence—Admissibility.

The prosecution on a trial for a conspiracy to defraud the government of its public lands may show by entrymen that it was their understanding that the lands entered on should be turned over to the conspirators, and that they were not taking claims in their own interest.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. §§ 100-104: Dec. Dig. § 45.*]

7. Criminal Law (§ 753*) — Evidence—Sufficiency--Question for Court.

Denial of a motion by accused at the close of the evidence of the prosecution for a directed verdict of not guilty leaves open to the court the right to consider whether there is any evidence to sustain a verdict of conviction, though not to pass on its weight or sufficiency.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1727; Dec. Dig. § 753.*]

8. Criminal Law (§§ 935, 1156*) — New Trial — Discretion of Trial Court.

The granting or refusal of a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction rests in the discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on writ of error.

[Ed. Note.- — -For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig! §§ 2297, 3068; Dec. Dig. §§ 935, 1156.*]

9. Conspiracy (§ 41*) — Criminal Responsibility — Evidence—Sufficiency.

One who becomes aware of tbe fraudulent character of the business in which he and his associates are engaged in obtaining title to irublic lands to defraud tbe United States, and who does not withdraw from the business or repudiate the acts of Ms associates actively participating in overt acts to obtain title to public lands, may be convicted of a conspiracy to defraud the United States of its public lands.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. § 74; Dec. Dig. § 41.*]

10. Criminal Daw (§ 1159*) — Verdict—Review.

The weight of the evidence and the extent to which it is contradicted or explained by witnesses of accused are questions exclusively for the jury, and not reviewable on writ of error.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074r-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159.*]