Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/253/142
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:19:37+00:00

Document:
Argued: April 23 and 26, 1920.
Messrs. Gilbert E. Roe, of New York City, T. C. West and Daniel O'Connell, both of San Francisco, Cal., and Joseph L. Tepper, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Plaintiffs in error were tried under an indictment with two counts. The first charges a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Actsection 3, Act June 15, 1917, c. 30, 40 Stat. 217, 219 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 10212c)by obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service; the second a conspiracy to violate the Selective Service Lawsection 6, Act May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76, 80 (Comp St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 2044f).
 and specified the following grounds: (1) The indictment fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute an offense. (2) The first count is repugnant to itself for reasons set forth in the demurrer. (3) The second count is based on the Act of May 18, 1917, inapplicable to the defendants because they were not engaged in carrying out its terms. (4) The first count does not adequately inform defendants concerning nature of charge against them. (5) Both the Acts of May 18 and June 15, 1917, are in conflict with the Constitution and are invalid.
Under the statute the trial term expired November 15; but, for the purpose of filing the bill of exceptions, a general rule extended it to December 4three months from the first Tuesday in September. The last order of court within the extended term designated December 14 as the final day for action.
'By the uniform course of decision, no exceptions to relings at a trial can be considered by this court, unless they were taken at the trial, and were also embodied in a formal bill of exceptions presented to the judge at the same or within a further time allowed by order entered at that term, or by standing rule of court, or by consent of parties. * * * After the term has expired, without the court's control over the case being reserved by standing rule or special order, and especially after a writ of error has been entered in this court, all authority of the court below to allow a bill of exceptions then first presented, or to alter or amend a bill of exceptions already allowed and filed, is at an end.' Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 298, 12 Sup.C t. 450, 452 (36 L. Ed. 162).
We think the power of the trial court over the cause expired not later than the 14th of December, 1917, and any proceedings concerning settlement of a bill thereafter were coram non judice. We may not, therefore, consider the bill copied in the record. Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333, 26 L. Ed. 113; Davis v. Patrick, 122 U. S. 138, 7 Sup. Ct. 1102, 30 L. Ed. 1090; Waldron v. Waldron, 156 U. S. 361, 15 Sup. Ct. 383, 39 L. Ed. 453; Jennings v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 255, 257, 31 Sup. Ct. 1, 54 L. Ed. 1031. And the same is true of certain notes of proceedings taken during trial which we directed to be brought here, without prejudice, by order of June 9, 1919.
The constitutionality of the two acts is settled by opinions of this court announced since the writ of error was sued out. Goldman et al. v. United States, 245 U. S. 474, 38 Sup. Ct. 166, 62 L. Ed. 410; Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470; Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. Ct. 249, 63 L. Ed. 561. Also the criminality of a conspiracy to obstruct recruiting and enlistment by persuasion has been determined. Schenck v. United States, supra.
Apparently a printed form was used in preparing the jury's verdict, defendants' names and the word 'guilty' being inserted. When presented no objection was made to its form or wording, neither the motion for new trial nor in arrest of judgment indicated any such objection, and plaintiffs in error mentioned none when called upon to show cause why sentence should not be imposed. We think the intention to find a general verdict of guilty upon both counts is sufficiently plain. Evidently all parties so understood at the time. See Statler v. United States, 157 U. S. 277, 279, 15 Sup. Ct. 616, 39 L. Ed. 700; Ballew v. United States, 160 U. S. 187, 197, 16 Sup. Ct. 263, 40 L. Ed. 388.
EXPORTERS OF MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS, Inc., v. BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON CO.

References: § 10212
 § 2044
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.