Aviles

This is an indictment for a conspiracy. Certain defendants have moved the court to quash the indictment, and to require the United States attorney to give them a list of the witnesses examined before the grand jury, when the grand jury had under consideration the question of presenting the indictment.

[ 1 ] The motion to quash has raised the question that the indictment does not sufficiently charge the venue. The allegation concerning the formation of the conspiracy is simply that it was formed within the jurisdiction of the court, without specifying any' particular place or county therein in which the conspiracy was formed. It is not necessary for the court to pass upon the question as to whether such a charge in the indictment sufficiently alleges the venue, for, in a conspiracy case, it is sufficient to charge that some of the overt acts occurred at a place within the jurisdiction Of the court. Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392, 401 , 32 Sup. Ct. 812, 56 L. Ed. 1136 . In this case several overt-acts are charged to have occurred at places within the jurisdiction of the court.

[2] The second proposition is that the indictment is too uncertain. The sixth amendment to the…