Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/444

436 FEDERAL REPORTER. �was a dealer in lottery tickets, and if the questions -would have been competent at ail as tending to disclose a prejudice against the defendant, that fact should, it seems, have been shown, or evidence of it offered. Without regard to that point, however, we think the facts ofïered to be shown immaterial, because they did not tend to disclose any prejudice which would render the juror incompetent. If the counsel ex- pected to foUow these questions up by others more material, he should have put such further questions or suggested the point. As the record stands it cannot be assumed that he desired to show against the competency of the juror anything more than would have been shown by affirmative answers to these questions. �7. Objection was also made to the admission in evidence of other papers enclosed in the same envelope with the let- ter or circular set forth in the first count, as it vas put in the mail. Those other papers tended strongly to show that the paper set forth related to a lottery, They were the cir- cular described in the second count, and two tickets purport- ing to be tickets in a lottery called "The Louisiana State Lottery. " There can be no doubt that they were competent evidence as part of the res gestœ. �8. A witness for the prosecution testified that he visited the place of business referred to in the letter set forth in the first count, No. 238 Grand street, a few days after .the time alleged in the indictment when the letter was mailed ; that he saw there several other papers bearing the same device or monogram as was on the papers enclosed with said letter, and saw the defendant there with a hand stamp make the same impression on a slip of paper. �The witness was then asked: "What else did you see and do there at that time ?" This question was objected to. The objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The witness then testified to seeing a lottery ticket sold there by defendant's clerk, while defendant was present, and to state- ments made by the defendant to the witness that this clerk was in his employ, and that this was bis business; and that the defendant tried to prevent a deputy marshal, who was ��� �