removing or altering the canceling or defacing marks thereon, shall be prima-facie proof that such stamp has been once used and removed by the possessor thereof from some paper, instrument, or writing charged with taxes imposed by law, in violation of the provisions of this section."1

By the Act of August 24, 1912, "If any vessel shall be found. within the waters to which this Act applies, having on board fur-seal skins or sea-otter skins, or bodies of seals or sea otters, or apparatus or implements for killing or taking seals or sea otter, it shall be presumed that such vessel was used or employed in the killing of said seals or sea-otters, or that said apparatus or implements were used in violation of this Act, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the court, in so far as such vessel, apparatus, and implements are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 2

By the Act of January 7, 1914, "Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who shall, either as principal or as accessory, receive or have in his possession, or conceal on board of or transport on any foreign or domestic vessel or other water craft or railroad car or other vehicle destined to or bound from the United States or any possession thereof, any smoking opium or opium prepared for smoking, or who, having knowledge of the presence in or on any such vessel, water craft, or vehicle of such article, shall not report the same to the principal officer thereof, shall be subject to the penalty provided in section two of this Act. Whenever on trial for violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of such opium, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury: Provided, however, That any master of a vessel or other water craft, or person in charge of a railroad car or other vehicle, shall not be liable under this section if he shall satisfy the jury that he had no knowledge and used due diligence to prevent the presence of such article in or on such vessel, water craft, car, or other vessel, and any such article shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed." 3

8522f. 1 Ch. 349, § 42, 28 St. at

L. 560, Comp. St., § 6314.

2 Ch. 373, § 7, 37 St. at L. 501, Comp. St., 8844.

3 Ch. 9, 84, 38 St. at L. 275, Comp. St., § 8801b.

By the Anti Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914, "It shall be unlawful for any person not registered under the provisions of this Act, and who has not paid the special tax provided for by this Act, to have in his possession or under his control any of the aforesaid drugs; and such possession or control shall be presumptive evidence of a violation of this section, and also of a violation of the provisions of section one of this Act: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any employee of a registered person, or to a nurse under the supervision of a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this Act, having such possession or control by virtue of his employment or occupation and not on his own account; or to the possession of any of the aforesaid drugs which has or have been prescribed in good. faith by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this Act; or to any United States, State, county, municipal, District, Territorial, or insular officer or official who has possession of any said drugs, by reason of his official duties, or to a warehouseman holding possession for a person registered and who has paid the taxes under this Act; or to common carriers engaged in transporting such drugs: Provided further, That it shall not be necessary to negative any of the aforesaid exemptions in any complaint, information, indictment, or other writ or proceeding laid or brought under this Act; and the burden of proof of any such exemption shall be upon the defendant." 4 This imposes upon the defendant after he has been proved to have had possession of the drugs the burden of proving the payment of the tax.5

By the Act of January 17, 1914, concerning the presumption and burden of proof as to time of importation, "On and after July first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, all smoking opium or opium prepared for smoking found within the United States shall be presumed to have been imported after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and the burden of proof shall be on the claimant or the accused to rebut such presumption." 6

4 Ch. 1, § 8, 38 St. at L. 789, Comp. St., § 6287n.

5 Fiunkin v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 1.

6 Ch. 9, § 3, 38 St. at L. 275, Comp. St., § 8801a.

By the Act of February 6, 1909, as amended January 17, 1917, "If any person shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the United States, or assist in so doing, any opium or any preparation or derivative thereof contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or seal of such opium or preparation or derivative thereof after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, such opium or preparation or derivative thereof shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed, and the offender shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $5,000 nor less than $50 or by imprisonment for any time not exceeding two years, or both. Whenever, on trial for a violation of this section, the defendant is shown to have or to have had, possession of such opium or preparation or derivative thereof, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury." This act is consti

tutional.8

By the Act of September 7, 1916, forbidding the transfer of vessels to foreigners during war or national emergency, "In any action or proceeding under the provisions of this Act to enforce a forfeiture the conviction in a court of criminal jurisdiction of any person for a violation thereof with respect to the subject of the forfeiture shall constitute prima facie evidence of such violation against the person so convicted.”

"After February 1, 1920, the possession of liquors by any person not legally permitted under this title to possess liquor shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept for the purpose of being sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished, or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this title."' 10

§ 523. Evidence in criminal cases. In general the rules concerning the admission and exclusion of evidence in criminal cases, in the courts of the United States, are, ordinarily, the same as

7 Act of February 6, 1909, ch. 100, § 2, 35 St. at L. 614, as amended January 14, 1917, ch. 9, § 2, 38 St. at L. 275, Comp. St., § 8801.

8 Charley Toy v. U. S., C. C. A., 266 Fed. 326.

9 Ch. 451, § 39, added July 15, 1918, ch. § 4, 40 St. at L. Comp. St., § 8146r (3).

10 Ch. 885, $36, Comp. St., § 101362t.

those in civil causes. The Constitution ordains, in the Fifth Amendment, that no person "shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." It has been held to be improper to attack an indictment by objections to the introduction of evidence.2 A general objection to evidence, to wit, is insufficient to save any question for review. It was held

that the fact that both parties permitted the introduction of incompetent evidence, without objection, did not preclude the court from subsequently excluding similar evidence upon objection duly made.

The trial court may in its discretion limit the number of witnesses who give cumulative testimony.5 Its decision in this respect is subject to review by writ of error.6

It has been held that the fact that a locality was within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation may be proved by oral testimony.7

The uncontradicted testimony of experts as to opinions derived from books and not from personal knowledge need not be accepted by the jury. An expert may testify that a man in his opinion is not an Indian. The jury may determine a man's physical ability to work from their observation of him on the witness stand without the aid of experts.10

An appointment to office 11 and the designation of a depositor for money of the United States, 12 when collateral matters, may be proved by oral testimony.

§ 523a. Cross-examination and impeachment of witnesses. The testimony of a witness upon cross-examination is regularly

§ 523. 1 McSpadden v. U. S., C. C. A., 224 Fed. 935; Simpson v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 940; Grant v. U. S., C. C. A., 252 Fed. 693.

2 McKnight v. U. S., C. C. A., 252 Fed. 887.

3 Ulmer v. U. S., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 641.

4 Franklin v. U. S., C. C. A., 193 Fed. 334.

5 Chapa v. U. S., C. C. A., 261 Fed. 775.

6 Chapa v. U. S., C. C. A., 261 Fed. 775.

Fed. Prac. Vol. III-38

7 Stewart v. U. S., C. C. A., 211 Fed. 41.

8 U. S. v. Perkins, 221 Fed. 109. 9 Stewart v. U. S., C. C. A., 211 Fed. 41, 47.

10 U. S. v. McHugh, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 224.

11 Sharfsin v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 916.

12 Foster v. U. S., C. C. A., 256 Fed. 207.

restricted to the subject of his direct examination and to questions intended to impeach him or affect his competency or credibility. A written statement, previously made by a witness, is not admissible in evidence to contradict or impeach his testimony, unless it was called to his attention when on the stand.2 It was held that where, on cross-examination, a witness admitted having made a sworn statement, the entire statement was admissible in evidence; but that he could not be crossexamined as to whether certain statements suggested by counsel were contained therein.3 It has been held that when books of account are in court and subject to the inspection and use of the defendant's counsel, it is not error to allow a summary of their contents to be put in evidence.

:

There is a most extraordinary ruling to the effect, that a letter threatening criminal proceedings written by the attorney of a witness for the Government who had appeared for the latter in a civil suit against the defendant was inadmissible to impeach the witness in the absence of proof that the witness had any knowledge thereof.5

Testimony by the defendant that he signed a confession at the request of a witness for the Government who knew that it contained false statements and promised him immunity was held to justify proof in rebuttal of good character of the witness.6

§ 523b. Documentary evidence in criminal cases. In general, the rules regulating the admission of documentary evidence in civil causes are followed in criminal prosecution. "Upon the trial of any indictment against any person for embezzling public moneys, it shall be sufficient evidence, for the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to produce a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treasury Department, certified by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary and authenticated under the seal of the Department, or when the suit involves the account of the War or Navy Department, certified by the

§ 523a. 1 Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, C. C. A., 169 Fed. 47; supra, § 473.

2 Lemon v. U. S., C. C. A., 164 Fed. 953.

8 Jones v. U. S., C. C. A., 162 Fed. 417.

4 Lemon v. U. S., C. C. A., 164 Fed. 953, 960.

5 Carey v. U. S., C. C. A., 265 Fed. 515.

6 Foster v. U. S., C. C. A., 256 Fed. 207.

§ 523b. 1 See supra, § 332, 3330.