mond, in United States vs. Stone, 8 Federal, 232, held that private prosecutors are unknown to the practice of the Federal Courts, the District Attorney being alone authorized to prosecute; and in speaking of this matter, he said: "Under our Federal practice, from the earliest times, and by force of the statute, the District Attorney is the only prosecutor known to our law; and as a matter of fact, in this Court at least, no private prosecutor has ever been recognized. Act of 1879, Chapter XX., Section 35, [1 St., 92]; Revised Statutes, Sec. 771; U. S. vs. Mundel, 6 Coll., 245; U. S. vs. McAvoy, 6 Blatchf., 418; U. S. vs. Blaisdell, 3 Ben., 132, where the Court refused to recognize an agreement of the Executive Department not to prosecute the offender, and said, that, 'when there is no District Attorney in commission, the Government cannot prosecute in this Court,' I Bishop Criminal Pr., Sec. 278. It is impossible, therefore, for anyone to occupy the place of a private prosecutor in this Court." $42. Proof of Witness' Former Conviction. In the absence of a Federal statute on the subject, the incompetency of a witness by reason of his prior conviction of a felony, cannot be shown upon his examination, but only by the production of the record, or an exemplified copy of it. Rise vs. United States, 144 Federal, 374. If the guilt of the party should be shown by oral evidence, and even upon his own admission, (though in neither of these modes can it be proved, if the evidence be objected to), or by his plea of guilty which has not been followed by a judgment, the proof does not go to the competency of the witness, however it may effect his credibility; and the judgment itself, when offered against his admissibility, can be proved only by the record, or in proper cases, by an authenticated copy, which the objector must offer and produce at the time when the witness is about to be sworn, or at furthest, in the course of the trial. I Greenleaf on Evidence, Fourteenth Edition, 375; 457. See also Sections 26 and 26a. CHAPTER III. PRACTICE SUGGESTIONS. § 42a. Aliens. 42b. Accomplice. 42c. Alaska-Territorial Courts. 42d. Assignment of Errors. 42e. Army and Navy: Court Martial, Need Control by Civil Courts. 42f. Appeal and Writ of Error: Forma Pauperis. 42g. Bill of Particulars. 42h. Corporations-Indictment of; Individual Aiding and Abetting— Proceedure. 42i. Error, Not Assigned, Not Ordinarily Noticed. 42j. Continuance-Granting is Matter of Discretion; Application which shows Mental Weakness of Defendant Requires a Court to Try That Issue First. 42k. Extradition; Not Defeated by Habeas Corpus; Technicality of Trial not Required; General Rules For; Certified Copy from Secretary of State Sufficient. 421. Judge Disqualification of-How to Proceed; Does Not Apply to Appellate Judges. 42m. Nolo Contendere-Practice Regulating; After Plea Accepted Cannot be Withdrawn Except by Leave of Court. 42n. New Trial; Discretion of Court-Rulings on Not Assigned as Er- 420. Limitations; Excepts Fugitives; Federal and not State Statutes murrer. 42p. Sherman Law-Trust Statute; Federal Trade Commission; Pur- 42q. Verdict, Motion to Direct, Waiver; Coercing of Verdict. 42s. Hand Writing, Comparison Statute; Cannot be Introduced for § 42a. Aliens.-An alien acquitted by a jury may be deported by the immigration authorities for the same offense. Ex parte Young, 211 Federal, 371. The contrary has been held in Chen Kee vs. U. S., 196, Federal, 74. There is no provision in the law for the issuance of a United States Commissioner's certificate and therefore it is of no value to the holder. Lum Bing Wey vs. U. S., 201, Federal, 379. A Chinaman has a right to bond pending his first hearing. Chin Yah vs. Caldwell, 187 Federal, 592; U. S. vs. Yet Yee, 192, Federal, 577. The burden is on the Chinaman to show that he is nativeborn. Yee Ging vs. U. S. 190, Federal, 270: U. S. vs. Ching Fong, 192, Federal, 485. A Chinese merchant is not subject to deportation if his interest is bona fide, however small, 210, Federal, 617. A Chinaman who was a merchant when the registration law required him to register and who did so and who thereafterward became a laborer, is not subject to deportation. U. S. vs. Wing, 211, Federal, 935. Sons of a Chinaman who is entitled to remain in this country, who become laborers upon reaching their majority, are not subject to deportation. U. S. vs. Yuen, 211, Federal, 1001. To the same effect is the case of Lew Lin Shew, 217, Federal, 317, and in this latter case the Court determines what an affidavit shall charge in order to be sufficient under these statutes for the deportation of aliens. "Moral turpitude" as embraced in the 34th Stats. L. 899, U. S. Compiled Statutes, 199 Supplement, p. 500, which is the immigration act in full, is defined in ex parte Young, 211, Federal, 371. The meaning of five years' residence is determined in United States vs. Cautinie, 212, Federal, 925. The deportation of aliens under the immigration act is in no sense a trial. Siniscolchia vs. Thomas, 195, Federal, 701. The entire method to be followed for the deportation of both men and women for prostitution under the Act will be found outlined in ex parte Pouliot, 196, Federal, 437. The right of the United States to recover the penalty for contracting with aliens and the method to be pursued for its collection, is discussed in United States vs. Dwight Mfg. Co., 210 Federal, 74. Government may proceed under Act February 24, 1907, compiled Stat., 1913, 4244, either civilly or criminally to collect penalty for importing contract labor. The meaning of the words "free white person" within the Act is determined in in re Najour, 174 Federal, 735. As to when habeas corpus may be resorted to by an alien who has been deported by the immigration authorities, is determined in ex parte Gregory, 210 Federal, 680. The United States Courts will not, overrule a State Court that has granted a naturalization certificate unless there be substantial difference between the state ruling and the Federal ruling, and the Federal ruling being the paramount ruling must prevail and in such a condition the United States Court would cancel a certificate issued by a State Court. U. S. vs. Lanare, 207 Federal, 865. The new immigration act provides in substance that applications for final papers must be made within seven years after the declaration of intention is filed. This means that those who had filed their declaration of intention prior to the passage of the 1906 act must seek their final papers within seven years after that act became a law, though there are some decisions to the contrary, 218 Federal, 168; 210 Federal; 211 Federal. The granting of bail to a Chinese person after the deportation order has been entered, is a matter of discretion with the Court. 132 Federal, 109; 188 Federal, 350. Chinese exclusion Act, Sept. 13, 1888, Comp. St. 1913, 4310, requires master of vessel to "knowingly" commit the acts denounced and such intent is not met by proof that a Chinese member, bona fide, of crew, escaped and stayed in the United States. U. S. vs. Innes, 218 Federal, 705. § 42b. Accomplice.-So manifest is the danger of convicting a man on evidence from a source confessedly corrupt, and delivered by the witness to shield himself from merited punishment, that the judges, while explaining to the jury their right to convict on it alone, by way of caution, advise them not to return a verdict of guilty unless it is corroborated by evidence from a purer source, yet they are not as of law required to give this advice. Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, 2nd Vol., Section 1169. There is nothing which forbids the conviction of a defendant at Common Law or in a Federal Court on the uncor roborated testimony of an accomplice. Richardson vs. U. S., 181 Federal, 1; Lung vs. U. S., 218 Federal, 817. Diggs vs. U. S., 220 Federal, 545. It is true there is a well established practice sanctioned by long judicial approbation, to caution jurors about accepting the evidence of an accomplice without material corroboration, and many of the states forbid a conviction on the testimony of an uncorroborated accomplice. Coleman vs. State, 44 Tex. 109. Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, 2nd Vol. Section 1169. § 42c. Alaska.—Territorial Courts are controlled by the general United States Statutes, 202 Federal, 457. § 42d. Assignment of Errors.-The rules of the different circuits require that assignments of error shall be filed by the plaintiff in error or appellant with the Clerk of the lower Court with his petition for the writ of error or appeal and assignment of errors, which shall set out separately and particularly each error asserted and intended to be urged, and that no writ of error or appeal shall be allowed until such assignment of errors shall have been filed. 193 Federal VII. The failure, however, to file an assignment of errors before the allowance of an appeal, does not deprive the Appellate Court of jurisdiction and the appeal will not be dismissed because the asignment of errors was not filed until later, where there was a valid reason therefor. Bernard vs. Lea, 210 Federal, 583. An error not assigned may sometimes be noticed, especially if it be a fundamental error. Savage vs. U. S., 213 Federal, 31. The writ of error must be sued out and lodged in the Court below within sixty days from the date of judgment. 211 Federal, 970. A supersedeas is not obligatory upon the Court. 188 Federal, 396. U. S. vs. Gibson. Writ of error may go direct to the Supreme Court of the United States from the trial court under certain conditions detailed in United States vs. Nixon et al., Supreme Court of the United States, Oct. Term, 1914. § 42e. Army and Navy.-Courts martial will not be interfered with by Civil Courts. Tucker, 212 Federal, 569. Civil Courts are not Courts of Error to review the judgments of courts martial where they are legally organized and |