for the erroneous refusal of a request then presented as for one submitted at a more appropriate time. Lengthy requests are disapproved.5 The refusal to give an instruction to which the defendant is entitled and which has been duly and specifically requested is reversible error. So it is when in his charge he refers to them as mere abstract propositions. The judge need not adopt the language of the request but may state the proposition in his own words provided that he fully covers the ground which the request indicates. When he has once correctly charged about a certain point he need not repeat such charge when an instruction thereupon is requested.9 Nor need he give an instruction which does not relate to the matters in controversy; 10 nor unless there is evidence in the case to which it applies.11 He should not give an instruction which recites as facts matters upon which the evidence is conflicting.12 A request which singles out certain facts without considering the facts which modify them and asks the court to charge that if the former are true the jury could not find the defendant guilty was held to be properly refused.13 A request is properly refused if it is not technically correct in all its parts and the court is not obliged then to give it in a modified form.14 § 528. Summary trials of offenses against navigation laws. The Revised Statutes enact: "Whenever a complaint shall be made against any master, officer, or seaman of any vessel belonging, in whole or in part, to any citizen of the United States, of the commission of any offense, not capital or otherwise infamous, against any law of the United States made for the pro 4 Ibid. 5 Hamburg-American Steam Packing Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 747, 769. 6 Stevenson v. U. S., C. C. A., 86 Fed. 106. 7 Burton v. U. S., 196 U. S. 283, 306, 49 L. ed. 482. 8 Tucker v. U. S., 151 U. S. 164, 38 L. ed. 112; Thiede v. Utah, 159 U. S. 510, 40 L. ed. 237. 9 Allen v. U. S., 164 U. S. 492, 41 L. ed. 528. 10 Agnew v. U. S., 165 U. S. 36, 41 L. ed. 624; Bird v. U. S., 187 U. S. 119, 47 L. ed. 100; O'Leary v. U. S., C. C. A., 158 Fed. 797. 11 Crain v. U. S., 162 U. S. 625, 40 L. ed. 1097. 12 Blanton v. U. S., C. C. A., 213 Fed. 320. 13 Hoss v. U. S., C. C. A., 232 Fed. 328. 14 Blanton v. U. S., C. C. A., 213 Fed. 320. tection of persons or property engaged in commerce or navigation, it shall be the duty of the district attorney to investigate the same, and the general nature thereof, and if, in his opinion, the case is such as should be summarily tried, he shall report the same to the district judge, and the judge shall forthwith, or as soon as the ordinary business of the court will permit, proceed to try the cause, and for that purpose may, if necessary, hold a special session of the court, either in term-time or vacation."1 "At the summary trial of offenses against the laws for the protection of persons or property engaged in commerce or navigation, it shall not be necessary that the accused shall have been previously indicted, but a statement of complaint, verified by oath in writing, shall be presented to the court, setting out the offense in such manner as clearly to apprise the accused of the character of the offense complained of, and to enable him to answer the complaint. The complaint or statement shall be read to the accused, who may plead to or answer the same, or make counter-statement. The trial shall thereupon be proceeded with in a summary manner, and the case shall be decided by the court, unless, at the time for pleading or answering, the accused shall demand a jury, in which case the trial shall be upon the complaint and plea of not guilty." 2 "It shall be lawful for the court to allow the district attorney to amend his statement of complaint at any stage of the proceedings, before verdict, if, in the opinion of the court, such amendment will work no injustice to the accused; and if it appears to the court that the accused is unprepared to meet the charge as amended, and that an adjournment of the cause will promote the ends of justice, such adjournment shall be made, until a further day, to be fixed by the court." "At the trial in summary cases, if by jury, the United States and the accused shall each be entitled to three peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause, in such cases, shall be tried by the court without the aid of triers. 4 113 "It shall not be lawful for the court to sentence any person convicted in such trial to any greater punishment than imprison § 528. 1 U. S. R. S., § 4300. See U. S. v. Harriman, 1 Hughes 525. 2 U. S. R. S., § 4301. 3 U. S. R. S., § 4302. 4 U. S. R. S., § 4303. ment in jail for one year, or to a fine exceeding five hundred dollars, or both, in its discretion, in those cases where the laws of the United States authorize such imprisonment and fine."' 5 "All the penalties and forfeitures which may be incurred for offenses against this Title may be sued for, prosecuted, and recovered in such court, and be disposed of in such manner, as any penalties and forfeitures which may be incurred for offenses against the laws relating to the collection of duties, except when otherwise expressly prescribed." 6 A later statute applies the provisions of these sections to the trial of offenses for failure to observe signals made in laying and repairing submarine cables and for failing to keep fishing implements or nets out-the way of such operations.7 "The law which dispenses with an indictment for petty offenses on high seas has been found very useful both to the government and to the accused. The district judges who have sat here since this law was first passed in June, 1864, have had very grave doubts of the constitutionality of that part of Section 4301 which provides for a trial by the court; and it has been usual to try all contested cases by jury."8 It has been said that these summary proceedings are put by the statute substantially on the footing of civil cases, and that the want of a due verification of complaint is waived by voluntary appearance of accused. It has been held, that such an error can be cured by amendment and cannot be urged for the first time upon a motion in arrest of judgment.10 § 529. Practice in prosecutions under the civil rights laws. "The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred" on the District Courts "by the provisions of this title," that on the "Judiciary" "and of title "Civil Rights,' and of title 'Crimes,' for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are 5 U. S. R. S., § 4304. 6 U. S. R. S., § 4305. 7 Act of Feb. 29, 1888, c. 17, § 11, 25 St. at L. 42. 8 Re Smith, 13 Fed. 25. D. Mass. 9 U. S. v. Smith, 17 Fed. 510. 10 Ibid. deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the state wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty." This section is not repealed or affected by the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1887.2 It relates to the forms of process and remedy and not to the extent or scope of the jurisdiction, nor to the rules of decision. It has been said: that, as there are no acts of Congress regulating challenges to grand jurors, the Federal court should follow the State practice as to objections to indictments because of irregularity in the selection of the members of the grand jury.4 § 530. New trials. The rules regulating motions for new trials in criminal cases are substantially the same as those in civil actions at common law.1 Irrespective of the State statutes the motion must be made at the term at which judgment is entered; 2 but when no judgment had been entered it was held that the motion might be made after the trial term. An order denying a motion for a new trial should not be reviewed upon writ of error, but a refusal to consider affidavits offered in support of a motion for a new trial may be a ground for reversal when an exception was duly taken to such exclusion.5 Where uncontradicted affidavits, which the court of original jurisdiction refused to consider, prove that a new trial must be granted, the court of review granted the same. The denial of a new trial in a $529. 1 U. S. R. S., § 722. 2 U. S. v., Mayer, 235 U. S. 55; U. S. v. Rogers, 164 Fed. 520; supra, § 478. 3 U. S. v. Rogers, 164 Fed. 520. 4 Whitworth v. U. S., C. C. A., 114 Fed. 302, supra, § 478. 5 Clyde Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140, 147, 36 L. ed. 917, 920. See Hendrix v. U. S., 219 U. S. 79, 91, 55 L. ed. 102, 106; Dwyer v. U. S., C. C. A., 170 Fed. 160. 6 Ogden v. U. S., C. C. A., 112 Fed. 523; Taylor v. U. S., C. C. A., 244 Fed. 321; supra, § 478. criminal case is not assignable as error, although affidavits of newly discovered evidence are filed in support of the motion for a new trial. Affidavits which were not submitted in the court of original jurisdiction cannot be considered by the court of review.8 § 531. Motions in arrest of judgment. A motion in arrest of judgment must be based upon an omission in the record of fact essential to show the jurisdiction of the court, or upon some error in the proceedings, which appears upon the record.1 After the verdict, matter outside of the record can properly only be brought to the attention of the court by a motion for a new trial, although such motions are sometimes erroneously called motions in arrest of judgment.3 A motion in arrest of judgment is not favored by the court.* It is the appropriate method of raising upon the record an objection to the indictment which has not been the subject of a motion to quash,5 or a demurrer.6 A motion in arrest of judgment will be granted where an objection to the legality of the organization of a grand jury appears on the record," or the indictment, conviction and sentence, were made by a court sitting at an unauthorized time,8 or where the record fails to show that a plea of not guilty was entered either by the defendant, or by order of the court on his behalf and in his presence; or where it appears from the indictment that it is based upon a statute that had been repealed; or where the indictment fails to charge any offense under a statute of the United States.11 10 When the indictment does not charge a crime under a statute of the United States the motion may be made by a defendant |