What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
DOUGHERTY DISTILLERY WAREHOUSE CO., Inc., Appellant, v. FRANKFORT DISTILLERY, Inc., Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
February 5, 1929.
No. 3957.
Chester N. Parr, Jr., and 'William A. Glasgow, Jr., both of Philadelphia, Pa., and Levi Cooke, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Robert P. Irwin, Jr., and Prank Rogers Donahue, both of Philadelphia, Pa., and A. J. Carroll, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In the court below [31 F.(2d) 217] the Prankfort Distillery, a corporate citizen of West Virginia, brought a bill in equity against the Dougherty Distillery Warehouse Company, a corporate citizen of Pennsylvania, the purpose of which was to compel the defendant to allow the plaintiff, by and with the consent of the government, to remove from the concentration warehouse of the defendant to the concentration warehouse of the plaintiff certain whisky owned by the plaintiff. In answer the defendant contended that such removal was not by law permissible. After hearing, the court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, and from it the defendant appealed.
In view of the full and satisfactory discussion of the whole subject by the trial judge, nothing would be gained by a restatement in a further opinion by this Court. The conclusion reached by Judge Dickinson is supported by Simon v. Prankfort Distillery, 2 F.(2d) 949, where the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit had before it the underlying question in this ease. After argument and full consideration had, we find ourselves in entire accord with that decision, and consequently with the decision of Judge Dickinson, and therefore we affirm the decree below.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4