1. Ceiminal Law (§ 1206*) — Sentence—Place and Incidents of Imprisonment — Federal Statutes.

Act March 3, 1891, c. 529, § 1, 26 Stat. 839 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3725), authorizing the construction of federal prisons “for the confinement of all persons convicted of any crime whose term of imprisonment is one year or more at hard labor,” is not an amendment of Rev. St. §§ 5541, 5542 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3721), which authorize confinement in a penitentiary of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment “for a period longer than one year” or to “imprisonment and confinement at hard labor,” and where a prisoner is convicted under a statute prescribing the punishment as a fine or imprisonment or both, and the sentence is for one year only, the court is without authority to prescribe hard labor as a term of the sentence or to order his confinement in a government penitentiary.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3271-3277, 3279, 3280; Dec. Dig. § 1206.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 1188*) — Appeal and Error — Disposition of Cause — Excessive Sentence.

The reversal of a judgment in a criminal case for error in imposing an excessive sentence does not entitle the defendant to a discharge, but the cause will be remanded, with directions to enter the appropriate judgment.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3222-3224 ; Dee. Dig. § 1188.*]

3'. Post Office (§ 50*) — Prosecution for Using Mails to Defraud — Instructions.

Instructions considered and approved in a prosecution under Rev. St. § 5480 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696), for using the mails to defraud.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Post Office, Cent. Dig. §§ 87-89; Dec. Dig. § 50.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 155*) — Using Mails to Defraud — Limitation.

The essence of the offense made punishable by Rev. St. § 5480 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696), is not the devising of a scheme or artifice to defraud, but the using of the mails in pursuance of. such a scheme, and a prosecution thereunder is not barred by limitation because the scheme may have been devised more than three years prior to the indictment, where the overt acts were committed within that time. •

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 281; Dec. Dig. § 155.*

Nonmailable matter, see notes to Timmons v. United States, 30 C. C. A. 79; McCarthy v. United States, 110 C. C. A. 548.]

5. Criminal Law (§ 1156*) — Appiiat, and Error — Matters Review abt,e.

Tlie ruling on a motion for new trial in a criminal case in a federal court is not, reviewable on a writ of error, even wlieu the motion is based on affidavits of matters occurring after the submission of the case to the jury.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3067-3071; Dec. Dig. § 1156.*]