US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. Where no question was raised in the courts below with respect to the sufficiency of an indictment, and no such question is presented here, its sufficiency will be assumed. P. 284 U. S. 392. chanrobles.com-red

Page 284 U. S. 391

2. Upon an indictment in three counts charging (1) maintenance of a common nuisance by keeping intoxicating liquor for sale at a specified place, (2) unlawful possession, and (3) unlawful sale, a defendant was found guilty on the first and was acquitted on the second and third. The evidence was the same on each count. It was contended that the evidence on the nuisance count was insufficient, and that the verdict was inconsistent.

Held:

(1) The evidence on the nuisance count was sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty. P. 284 U. S. 392.

(2) Consistency in the verdict was not required. P. 284 U. S. 393.

(3) The verdict may not be upset by speculation or inquiry into whether it was the result of compromise or mistake on the part of the jury. P. 284 U. S. 394.

3. Where offenses are separately charged in the counts of a single indictment, though the evidence is the same in support of each, an acquittal on one may not be pleaded as res judicata of the other. P. 284 U. S. 393.

50 F.2d 779 affirmed

Certiorari, post, p. 607, to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed a judgment of the District Court upon a verdict of guilty under the National Prohibition Act. See Borum v. U.S., post, p. 596.