¶1Poisons <@=>9 — Indictment for selling morphine
¶2held sufficient.
¶3An indictment charging that defendant did unlawfully “purchase, sell, dispense, and distribute … morphine, which said morphine was not then and there in, nor from, the original stamped package,” held sufficient.
¶4In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of California; Frank H. Kerrigan, District Judge.
¶5Criminal prosecution by the United States against John Scott Barker. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7John Scott Barker, of Washington, D. C., in pro. per.
¶8Sterling Carr, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
¶9Before HUNT, RUDKIN, and McCAMANT, Circuit Judges.
¶11This is a writ
¶12of error to review a judgment of conviction under the Harrison Narcotic Act (Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q). The indictment contains three counts. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to counts 1 and 2, and guilty as to count 3. The third count charges that on a date named, within the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff in error did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and feloniously purchase, sell, dispense, and distribute a certain derivative of opium, to wit, about two grains of morphine, which said morphine was not then and there in, nor from, the original, stamped package. This count is sufficient in law. Stubbs v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 837; Sam Wong v. United States (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 969. And in the absence of a bill of exceptions we cannot review the other errors assigned.
¶13The judgment is affirmed.