FORM 23. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.

In the District Court of the United States for the ...

The defendant moves the court to grant him a new trial for the following reasons:

1. The court erred in denying defendant's motion for acquittal made at the conclusion of the evidence.

2. The verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

3. The verdict is not supported by substantial evidence.

4. The court erred in sustaining objections to questions addressed to the witness Richard Roe.

5. The court erred in admitting testimony of the witness Richard Roe to which objections were made.

6. The court erred in charging the jury and in refusing to charge the jury as requested.

7. The defendant was substantially prejudiced and deprived of a fair trial by reason of the following circumstances: the attorney for the government stated in his argument that the defendant had not taken the witness stand and that the defendant had been convicted of crime.

8. The court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial.

FORM 24. MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

In the District Court of the United States for the

The defendant moves the court to arrest the judgment for the following reasons:

1. The indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States.

2. This court is without jurisdiction of the offense, in that the offense if any was not committed in this district.

......

Attorney for Defendant.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

IV. Commerce.

1. Federal Regulation. Uniformity. Fifth Amendment does not require full and uniform exercise of commerce power by Congress. Mabee v. White Plains Pub. Co., 178; Oklahoma Press Co. v. Walling, 186.

2. Federal Regulation. Labor Relations. Fair Labor Standards Act valid as applied to newspapers. Id.

3. Federal Regulation. Public Utility Holding Companies. Validity of provision of Public Utility Holding Company Act authorizing Securities & Exchange Commission to limit operations of holding company to single integrated public utility system; holding company as engaged in interstate commerce. North American Co. v. S. E. C., 686.

4. Local Taxation. Discrimination. Solicitors. Ordinance taxing "solicitors" invalid as here applied; discrimination against outof-State merchants. Nippert v. Richmond, 416.

V. Due Process of Law.

1. Trial by Military Commission. Rights of Accused. Requirements of Fifth Amendment. In re Yamashita, 1; see also Homma

v. Patterson, 759.

2. Right to Counsel. Arraignment. Sentence. Lack of counsel prior to plea of guilty not denial of right, where counsel at time of sentence could have withdrawn plea and taken advantage of every defense theretofore available. Canizio v. New York, 82.

3. Federal Regulation of Commerce. Fifth Amendment does not require full and uniform exercise of commerce power by Congress. Mabee v. White Plains Pub. Co., 178; Oklahoma Press Co. v. Wall

ing, 186.

4. Id. Fair Labor Standards Act valid as applied to newspapers. Id.

5. Federal Regulation. Taking of Property. Compensation. Holding Companies. Validity of order of Securities & Exchange Commission requiring holding company to divest itself of scattered subsidiaries and to confine operations to single integrated public utility system. North American Co. v. S. E. C., 686.

6. Notice. Judgment. Alimony. Judgment for accrued alimony, entered without notice to defendant, unenforceable. Griffin v. Griffin, 220.

7. Notice. Judgment. Confirmation of Rights. Notice not required before confirmation of rights previously established in proceeding whereof adequate notice was given. Id.

8. Notice. Judgment. Enforcement in Other State. Judgment lacking due process unenforceable elsewhere. Id.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.

9. Administrative Action. Judicial Review. Congress may withhold judicial review of administrative action, except where Constitution requires. Estep v. U. S., 114.

10. Criminal Cases. Coercion. Conviction upon evidence obtained by coercion invalid. Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 274.

CONSTRUCTION. See Criminal Law, 1, 3; Jurisdiction, I, 5; II, 1, 4-5; IV, 6; VI; Statutes, 2-6.

CONSTRUCTION BONDS. See Bankruptcy, 2.

CONTRACTS. See Bankruptcy, 2; Constitutional Law, II, 2, 4-5; Jurisdiction, I, 3; IV, 8; VI; Labor, 6; Sale; Taxation, II, 2-3. CORAM NOBIS. See Procedure, 3.

CORPORATIONS. See Bankruptcy, 4; Constitutional Law, I, 6; IV, 3; V, 5; Taxation, I, 3.

COUNSEL. See Constitutional Law, V, 2.

COUNTERCLAIM. See Jurisdiction, V.

COUNTIES. See Price Control, 2.

COURT OF CLAIMS. See Jurisdiction, V.

COURTS. See Administrative Law, 1, 5-10; Bankruptcy, 1, 3, 5; Constitutional Law, I, 1, 4-8, 11; V, 6-10; Evidence, 1; Jurisdiction; Procedure.

COUSINS. See Employers' Liability Act, 1; Labor, 9.

CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy, 1-2, 4-5; Limitations, 2.

CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT. See Jurisdiction, II, 1.

CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES. See p. 821; Procedure, 4. CRIMINAL LAW. See Constitutional Law, V, 1-2, 10; Jurisdiction, II, 1; Procedure, 3–5, 7; Taxation, I, 1; War, 1–8.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, p. 821.

1. Assimilative Crimes Act. Construction. Assimilative Crimes Act did not make Arizona statutory rape law applicable to married white man who had carnal knowledge of 16-year-old Indian girl within Colorado River Indian Reservation. Williams v. U. S., 711.

2. Price Control Act. Violation of Regulations. Effect of uncertainty or ambiguity in regulations; instructions to jury; reversible error. Kraus & Bros. v. U. S., 614.

3. Kickback Act. Indictment. Construction of Act; legitimate union activity unaffected; insufficiency of indictment. U. S. v. Carbone, 633.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. See Constitutional Law, V, 1-2, 10; Procedure, 3-5, 7.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, p. 821.

DAMAGES. See also Antitrust Acts; Eminent Domain, 2; Evidence, 2; Jurisdiction, IV, 1.

1. Measure of Damages. Basis of Computation. Violation of Antitrust Acts. Slump in theatre's receipts as basis for computing damages from discriminatory system of distributing motion-picture films. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 251.

2. Measure of Damages. Uncertainty. Estimate. Jury may estimate damages from relevant data where defendant's wrong precludes precise computation. Id.

DEATH. See Labor, 9.

DECREE. See Constitutional Law, I, 7.

DE MINIMIS. See Labor, 4.

DEPENDENTS. See Labor, 9.

DEPOSITION. See War, 6.

DERIVATIVE SUIT. See Bankruptcy, 4.

DISCRIMINATION. See Constitutional Law, III, 2; IV, 1, 4; V, 3-5; Evidence, 2; Taxation, II, 1.

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. See Attorneys.

DISTRICT COURTS. See Jurisdiction, IV, 1-10; Procedure, 4; Rules of Criminal Procedure, p. 821.

DIVESTMENT. See Constitutional Law, IV, 3; V, 5.

DIVIDENDS. See Taxation, I, 3.

DIVORCE. See Constitutional Law, V, 6-8.

DRAFT. See War, 8-12.

DRUMMERS. See Constitutional Law, IV, 4.

DUE PROCESS. See Constitutional Law, I, 7; V, 1-10; Habeas Corpus, 2; Procedure, 3; War, 1-2, 6-7.

EARNINGS. See Taxation, I, 2-3.

EMBEZZLEMENT. See Taxation, I, 1.

EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT. See Administrative Law, 4; Attorneys; Constitutional Law, I, 4; II, 2-3; Criminal Law, 2; Jurisdiction, II, 6; IV, 5, 7; Price Control, 1-3.

INDEX

ACCOUNTING. See Labor, 10.

ADJUSTMENT BOARD. See Labor, 8.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. See also Constitutional Law, I, 5-6, 10; IV, 3; V, 5, 9; Jurisdiction, I, 7; III, 5; IV, 8-9; VI; Labor, 5, 7-8, 10; Price Control, 1-3; War, 8-12.

1. Authority of Agency. Scope. Determination finally of scope of statutory power of administrative agency is judicial not administrative function. Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 358.

2. Determinations. Legal Basis Necessary. Administrative determinations must have basis in law and be within authority of agency. Id.

3. Determinations. Matters Dehors Record. Consideration of matters dehors the record. U. S. v. Pierce Auto Lines, 515.

4. Regulations. Ambiguity. Effect. Effect of uncertainty or ambiguity in regulations prescribed by Price Administrator. Kraus & Bros. v. U. S., 614.

5. Judicial Review. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy. Exhaustion of administrative remedy as prerequisite to judicial review. Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 540.

6. Judicial Review. Administrative Interpretations. Weight. Interpretation of Act by administrator or agency charged with enforcement or administration, entitled to great weight. Boutell v. Walling, 463.

7. Judicial Review. Scope. Labor Relations Act. Circuit Court of Appeals without authority to eliminate broad cease-anddesist order, where not objected to before Board and failure unexcused. Labor Board v. Cheney Lumber Co., 385.

8. Judicial Review. Findings of Fact. Tax Court. Finality of Tax Court's findings of fact when supported by evidence. Commissioner v. Tower, 280; Lusthaus v. Commissioner, 293.

9. Judicial Review. Mistake of Law. Tax Court. Circuit Court of Appeals authorized to reverse Tax Court decision based on clear-cut mistake of law. Commissioner v. Wilcox, 404.

10. Judicial Review. Selective Training & Service Act. Scope of judicial review of administrative action under Selective Training and Service Act. Estep v. U.S., 114.