¶1Andersen & Resner, George R. Andersen, and Herbert Resner, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
¶2Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and James T. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
¶3Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
¶5Appellant, Joseph Harry Prevost,1 was *748indicted in three counts. Counts 1 and 2 charged violations of subsections (a) and (d) of § 346 of the Nationality Code, 8 U.S.C.A. § 746(a) and (d).2 Count 3 charged a violation of subsection (a) of § 31 and subsection (a) of § 36 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 452 (a) and 457(a).3 Appellant moved to dismiss counts 1 and 2. The motion was denied. Appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried. At the trial, appellee’s Exhibits 8 and 9 were admitted in evidence over appellant’s objections. Appellant was convicted on each count of the indictment, was sentenced, and has appealed.
¶6Appellant assigns as error the denial of the motion to dismiss counts 1 and 2. The motion was, in effect, a demurrer to these counts on the ground that they did not charge offenses against the United States. Count 1 alleged, in substance and effect, that on or about May 14, 1942, in Sausalito, California, appellant, in an application for employment, knowingly falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States, whereas, in truth and fact, he was not, and knew he was not, then and there a citizen of the United States. Count 2 alleged, in substance and effect, that on or about May 6, 1941, in San Francisco, California, appellant, in a Selective Service questionnaire, knowingly falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States, whereas, in truth and fact, he was not, and knew he was not, then and there a citizen of the United States. Thus each of these counts charged an offense against the United States, namely, a violation of subsections (a) and (d) of § 346 of the Nationality Code, 8 U.S.C.A. § 746(a) and (d)-4
¶7Appellant contends that counts 1 and 2 were defective in failing to show how and in what manner, if at all, the representations mentioned therein were material. No such showing was required. The subsections of which counts 1 and 2 charged violations say nothing about materiality. The motion was properly denied.
¶8Appellant assigns as error the admission of appellant’s Exhibit 8 in evidence. Exhibit 8 consists of two sheets of paper, which we shall call sheets 1 and 2. On sheet 1 is a typewritten caption: “Statement of Satty Arthur Frank,5 white German, employed as a sailor aboard the S. S. ‘Alvarado,’ relative to the stabbing of L. Parta and Manuel Pisco, aboard the above-named vessel which was moored to Pier No. 8-D, Cristobal, Canal Zone, about 4 p.m., April 16, 1926.” Below the caption, and separated from it by a ruled line extending across the sheet, is a typewritten statement signed by appellant6 as Satty Arthur Frank. *749Below and to the left of appellant’s signature is a typewritten notation: “Made and dated at Cristobal, Canal Zone, this 16th day of April, 1926, in the presence of A. O. Meyer, Sergeant, Zone Police. Lester H. Detrick, 1/C1. Policeman, Zone Police.” The notation bears what purport to be the signatures of Meyer and Detrick.
¶9To sheet 1 is attached sheet 2 of Exhibit 8. On sheet 2 are two certificates dated June 9, 1943 — a certificate of C. M. Lupfer, Assistant Executive Secretary, certifying that “the attached statement, dated April 16, 1926, of Satty Arthur Frank, is the original of said statement taken from the official records of The Panama Canal7 in [Lupfer’s] legal custody,” and a certificate of F. H. Wang, Executive Secretary, certifying that Lupfer “has the custody of the official records of The Panama Canal.”
¶10Appellant objected to the whole of Exhibit 8, including the statement on sheet 1, and objected separately to the caption on sheet 1 and particularly to that part of the caption which describes appellant as a German. The statement was not written by appellant, but was signed by him, and was, we think, admissible in evidence. The caption was not written or signed by appellant. So far as the record shows, appellant never saw it until it was offered in evidence at his trial. He objected to it as hearsay. It was hearsay. Its admission was erroneous, and prejudicial.
¶11Appellant assigns as error the admission of appellee’s Exhibit 9 in evidence. Exhibit 9 consists of a so-called arrest card and, attached thereto, two certificates dated June 19, 1943 — a certificate of C. M. Lupfer, Assistant Executive Secretary, certifying that “the attached arrest card, dated April 17, 1926, of Satty Arthur Frank, is the original of said arrest card taken from the official records of the Panama Canal8 in [Lupfer’s] legal custody,” and a certificate of F. H. Wang, Executive Secretary, certifying that Lupfer “has the custody of the official records of the Panama Canal.”
¶12The card has on it these words and figures, some of them printed, some typewritten: “Name Frank, Satty Arthm9… Arrested at Cristobal by Callaway Capt. Date 4/17/24 Age 23 Color Wh Sex M Native of Germany Occupation Seaman, ss. Alvarado Married No Warrant Yes Offense Material Witness Complainant L. C. Callaway ZP … Remarks: 4/17/24 in jail. 5/1/26 released in custody of Walter F. Scharpp, German Consul.”
¶13The card was not printed or typed by appellant. It was not signed by appellant or anyone else. So far as the record shows, appellant never saw it until it was offered in evidence at his trial. He objected to it as hearsay. It was hearsay. Its admission was erroneous and prejudicial.
¶14Other errors are assigned, but need not be considered.
¶15Judgment reversed.