Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/414

 400 FEDERAL SEPOETEB. �mdictment. The court refused to so instruct the jury, and the defendant excepted to such refusai. This request cannot be regarded as raising any point as to the BuiEciency of the indictment. It only raises the point as to the suf&ciency of the evidence to warrant a conviction on the indietnieût as it stood, assuming it to be good. �The defendant seeks to raise the point as to the propriety of such refusai. But this court cannot pass on that question, for the reason that the bill of exceptions cannot be regarded as setting forth ail the evidence. It does not state that it sets forth ail the evidence, nor does it state anything from whioh it can be inferred that it sets forth ail the evidence. On the contrary, it appears clearly, from its face, that it does not set forth ail the evidence. �The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury (1) "that there is no evidence in the case from which the jury can find that defendant placed the special notice and letter in question in any post-ofBce of the United States, or caused it to be so placed." This request was refused, and the refusai was excepted to. For the reason before stated, this request cannot be passed on by this court. The bill of exceptions states that "no direct evidence was given that the defendant placed the paper in question in any post-ofBce, or that he received the same from any post-office, except as herein above stated." Indirect evidence may bave been given to the above effect, and was competent to be considered, and may hava been sufficient, in connection with the direct evidence referred to, to warrant the finding mentioned. The implication from the statement is that it was given, and is not set forth. At ail events, it does not appear that the bill of exceptions sets forth ail the evidence on the point, and the court below, in ruling on the request, was passing on ail the evidence, �The defendant requestd the court to instruct the jury (2) "that the mailing of the Malone Palladium at Malone, by the publishers of that paper, did not constitute an offence under the laws of the United States for which defendant can be held liable on the evidence in this case." This request was re- fused, and the refusai was excepted to, This request was ����