Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/441

UNITED STATES ». NOELKE. 433 �CTilar should have been set forth, not as it is by a.desoription of its contents, but in hœc verba. Wbere the offence consists of words spoken or written, the general rule is that those words must be set forth in the indietment. This rule has been applied in a large number of cases, inciuding the offence of sending threatening letters. RexY, Dogd, 2 Easts. P. C. 1122. It seems to us that the present case is within the general rule. In the recent case of United States v. Bennett, the rule was recognized in a case of indietment for sending obscene matter through the mail, but it was held that the rule did not apply where it appeared by the indietment that the matter was too indecent to be put upon the records of the court, in which particular case the courts in this eountry bave held that the rule does not apply. This objection appears to have been regarded as one of substance and not of form merely, and, therefore, it is not aided by verdict at common law. Brad- laugh v. The Queen, L. E. 32, B. D. 618. And for the same reason we think it is not cured by the statute above referred to. Eev. St. § 1025. �The motion in arrest must therefore be sustained, as to the second count, and overruled as to the first count. �6. The first three exceptions taken upon the trial were during the empanelling of the jury. A juror being called was asked by defendant's oounsel, "Have you any prejudice against the lottery business, or those who areengaged init?" This was objected to and excluded, and defendant excepted. He was then asked, "Are you disposed in your mind to put an end to the trafSc in lottery tickets?" This was objected to and excluded, and defendant excepted. He was then asked, "Are you in favor of active measures for the sup- pression of the lottery business." This was objected to and excluded, and the defendant excepted. The juror had previ- ously testified that he knew nothing about the case ; and he subsequently testified, being further interrogated by defend- ant's counsel, that he had heard nothing and read nothing, nor talked with anybody at ail, about the prosecution of lot- tery dealers, and that he felt he could go into the jury-box �v.l,no.7— 28 ��� �