Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/268

 254 FEDERAL REPORTER. �is a mistake to treat the charge as altering the form of the pleadinga or amalgamating the counts, though the language used might pos- sibly be so construed. The object of the court was to rule that thero were not, as had been argued, separate and distinct offences, bat one offence, whioh might be compassed by the doing of several acts, and that the doing of any one of them required a verdict of guilty. Thia being so, the defendant could not rightfully claim to be tried as if each act constituted a separate offence; and the real ground of complaint, on the motion for a new trial, is that the court did not so treat the case because the attorney for the government had so treated it in his pleading. I have endeavored to show that, conceding that there were charged separate offences, and not several acts of the same offence, a general verdict was still proper and lawful, though it would have been, in that case, correct to find a separate verdict on each count. Hence, in any view, no error has been committed for which a new trial should be granted. �We corne, now, to the objection that the evidence of the confession was improperly admitted. I cannot see any reason why it should have been excluded. The witness Bennett was not in any proper view a person in authority ; neither was Tarrant, the deputy marshal. In Com. v. Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 173, 190, the court states the rule to be that all confessions — �"Which are obtained by threats of harm or promises of favor and wordly advantage, held eut by a person in authority, or standing in any relation from which the law will presume that his communications would be likely to exer- cise an influence over the mind of the accused, are to be excluded from the hearing of judicial tribunals." Again: "Whether the court improperly admits them cannot be determined by reference to judicial authorities, which can only supply the principle of law which is to constitute a standard of decision; but in every case the admissibility in evidence of confessions must depend upon the peculiar state of facts and circumstances existing in that case." Id. at p. 192; Com. y. 'Morey, 1 Gray, 461, 463; U. S. v. Nott, 1 Mc- Lean, 499. �The circumstances in Tuckerman's Case, supra, are instructive, but I sball not take space to relate them here. The confessions were made to a stockholder and director of the corporation injured by the embezzlement, and yet were admitted, although the promises were stronger than we have here. The court says : �" Thus, if an accused party lias been made a prisoner, anything which may be said to him by the offlcer by whom he is held in custody willalways be scru- tinized with greatest care, and slight promises of favor coming from him will be considered a su fflcient reason for rejecting all proof of subsequent confessions, ��� �