INCARDONIA v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 20, 1926.)
No. 4629.
Criminal law <§=>1059(2).
Part of charge complained of, not separately excepted to, held not properly presented for review.
In Error to District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Charles R. Beattie, Judge.
Vincent Incardonia was convicted of violating the National Prohibition Act, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Clarence J. Dowling, of New Orleans, La., for plaintiff in error.
Wayne G. Borah, U. S. Atty., and Arthur A. De la Houssaye, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff in error, who was convicted of violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138% et seq.), complains of the overruling of a motion to quash a search warrant, and of part of the charge given by the court. The motion to quash the search warrant was based on allegations to the effect that the premises searched were not those described in the search warrant. The record does not show that the evidence was such as to require the conclusion that those allegations were sustained. There was evidence tending to prove that the premises searched were those described in the search warrant. The part of the court’s charge which is complained of is not properly presented for review, as it was not separately excepted to, the exception reserved being to the charge as a whole. Obviously, much of the charge was' not subject to objection.
The judgment is affirmed.