U.S. Supreme Court
Humes v. United States, 170 U.S. 210 (1898)
Humes v. United States
Submitted February 21, 1898
Decided April 25, 1898
170 U.S. 210
It is again decided that it is no ground for reversal that the court below omitted to give instructions which were not requested by the defendant.
The charge of the trial court was sufficiently full and elaborate.
It is again held that this Court cannot consider an objection that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence if there was any evidence proper to go to the jury in support of the verdict.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for violating section 5486 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The indictment contained nine counts. They respectively charged the withholding and detention of certain sums of money for pension fees in excess of the amount allowed by the statute to be charged, to-wit, the first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth counts; that defendant withheld, respectively, from William Anderson, Isaac Bloodson, Ann Galloway, and Whitfield Pryor the several sums of $486.40, $517.20, $120.13, $116, and $15.80; the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth counts charged that he "did demand from said persons, respectively, the said several sums." The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the first and third counts, a verdict of not guilty as to the second, fourth, seventh, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
eighth and ninth counts, and a nolle prosequi was entered by the United States attorney as to the fifth and sixth counts.
There are eleven assignments of error. The first part of the eighth and eleventh assignments relate to a failure on the part of the court to give certain instructions. The record does not show that there was a request for such instructions. The second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, part of the eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments relate to alleged error in the instructions given by the court. No exception is shown by the record to have been taken. The twelfth and thirteenth assignments of error are based upon the alleged fact that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The third assignment of error is based upon the refusal of the court to give an instruction which was requested.
The statement of the record is:
"The defendant asked the following special instruction, which was refused:"
"Unless you find from the evidence that the defendant was the attorney, agent, or other person engaged in prosecuting the pension claims of Anderson, Haynes, and Bloodson, the court instructs you to find for the defendant. . . . I think I have given this instruction in the general charge, and, believing the charge on this point is sufficient full, further instruction is declined. Clark, J."
"To which action and ruling of the court in so refusing to give said special instructions the defendant then and there excepted."