Strang v. United States Court Opinion

    I{'I,I)nRAL ll,fll'OliTDll,, 2d SI,)tiI t{S:5oe--l- -z I i--t,lilir,ri &-,6 il 2e t2,t ffi - I r ql ezrsz; I r ix r.i:l,l',,2 I 0gt_l 
lnz8.ltrSrix? | xtl'Zrltlilx I t:tZt,':AzZr,0 l liltlMou2{r I ?:t[".:,1il;:il

G:l;Cs Is70l,l)5s(t I -ZqO- I rl'S*199 I lr;ltSW t{1t{s2rlr0.r.{4
dlrlB:pl852S(:::(,{) lr,r.u?tilrs?17 l:lnclz,tcxt-, I trot:tl 8()t..2rl?6jro
. -iO3- I -ZZt- lcr'?lLllgi{i I ro:tI,2,lri::ri I lrr;o,v,iz..:tl I xol....l,larisr
;i g!!_2 

ls235l'S;57 lr<.47SCr00 I ?:.:N{'vl?s I ztrOswzsa I r;ii3,1to711r

l'ol.5ll
6;-11 f-ii2q-

I I il(il'r I rr2\til ; SiJ | 1)

3lilt1i\ I r.!| Irr7{il,lril I:lE
4oll1'47{1} I :r;:sl';{ix
t(iB'l'A(i{(i IsLls.r I'sGI i
I I'l'(ll 4il2 ls?(iLE5!5
s:l/ltl3:lsu ls;::s(:l0f)
f )!z{tlS71n I s.t-l l'2(l-q5(itrllzig lrtAfznnltsr, l<:c12t'2rti19 lrirt,z,t.l$ri | :lorSwZr,z I toorz,ttie3 -Bl l- lrlriS!'.Ilts2(i

12ll'2(l6t,r(il(:(.z(iMC802 I zritrt,zaZZ8 | ztoSU'eC I fOZf:,t \2tr2tll\!12 I lil Ir'Sr714
l88l'2d2639 ls48l'2r1850 I -758- I 2.45sw128 I r0301 !)d3(it) i:l{B'l'AlU& I 188F2d5M1 ls3'lNlCr-r83 I (i2E2d2ig4 I .CTZSW4SZ I lo7t2d?362 Il'Jd1015A:S{8{ lzl:-,rzarririsl osrzotzzo I sz,er;gu I nrsswszr I rrcr:a -BtB- l2clt'Ii\2;H
2{8['2ar6347 l.r+lrctrz | -760- lrrsan Ir17 7lt\2it' 457 | :.]ti I]'l'A{;9,i
25liF2'10:Jt)6 | l5tlt'2't71.r1 lsl ?BTA142 t1123rrl I lt{I,'?(13740 ?:.lli'Z(l:,iri(, I :(;ll'lA
2961'2d3x02 | +ZttCz;$z Is2GIJTA 16sdll | 12Ul'2(l I {il)Ir)d73(r3 | 10s8

'Frlo 
I gozrzooz+r I 2oor2drz3ti

-':I;6 
is76LE04ri lcc?F2rtri8$ I3$qt,::,19;tr, IBri2ttlol2loI$()tr2dllO90

.IClfl:!0 ls52SC45n lcr,35M(ll.t20 I t7$r.rrit:x[-, I znSWzcg I $.;l:ars?z

'2tt'2d6241 1200t'2d'23ril ll405l U352rrl [1r14(
7r'2al5t12 I30(iE2d71U1 I -7CS- I -783- I151Dd7962

'{i
(izMC;2O74l z2F.2dzb80 I 20I.2d2482 | 1g1r.2d

301SW?58 I r-)t'S2442 I rCSrZasZagl 25A8n2633 [ 1 1516

22()Ii'.1(l1s!) | {rA?4..:!u
22ot)rtrft62 l -825-
2it2p,rla 482 I 

a 2 sU Il S'l'?'
5(iNIC410I2 | 

a TtiLEl 1 :|j
3;3612,1 r 716 | 

a ir2 SC50: )

g62li.2,lr{6 ls2s.iUSJJ3
234 I n?liS ls?(iLEll27
I :.lNWSs.l ls,12S{r.t{)ir
isi,iic ",, 1.fr lilillfij,[1O2] rr_r,;u..r_i)
22ss\a/Als I ri(ile(lr'lsl
9A39O5n | 69r-2d6:J2

B7-
rrlil
r-l

:l
.:I

-72g.- Ir9.{r's4r}0 I216F2d6533 1 rt2f,'2d29{1 I 216F2d8535
S5US542 I6lNIC740 |245ln2{n IillAIln2108 l 223h'2<1d22

LEI)84 J I08S2d254 | 6INw405 | 6['s1480 I 227F2{i011?
4 |04llt):.lil2rr |S5zltll104n | 24ABnt60Bl 220[2(l

lg1tr'2dp(ittgl -746- |,85,{ltl1l4rr | (itrs20irs I

irsri.i,isiils2li6tl5542 | 144,4&.l,urr | 25A8n2253 | 251r2d
.l4ABnr4bb 1s76L81279 | 8431029n | 10f,'S3542 lrl
ld2F2d340 lsizs(r{ltn I LIA?#72[ | 4i.['Srzrt | :,:$Z!zd
B6FSI11 Jfsl{F2dr1tt I -7G7- | 51ABnr333 | 335F2d
lieerfizz I 86r2dr274 I lzl'Z,ltzt} lc134li'St680 [ 12819

(')-198 I ttejsizn | 47f,'Sr2u | 2s282d5688

.l

(l
:a

r

i':

:

riiiis,zlo-l8zt'zotoez lrcpzazz+8 | -785- | oonsaero
l?6r.Ss2tn I U0t'2dr95c I gOrz6z8g | 984R1420n 1113t'S
l?2rS{S?? I 109F2dr5861 9gF2d58TB | -7A7- I t1377t
lg4N.ri4?(il 15FSr261 I zfgrzo0ztbl goeatl6n | 20FRI)333
g6A2d8r l93FS54 lt{(i,,In{)02n I -Zgf- l315IJSrr81
1{Bdq76on | 244A1664 | 95,ut809n I srrzaucee | 86LDII705qnz I28OS72 I -Z7O- I -ron- l62SCIU70_2r< | 28oS72 I -77O- I 

--fSS- | 62scrr{70

sti,g,#, 1 ;tlWT I ffififirl, I I:XSI?8;,| llffiitlfl'
i*fijii, I i8lr#i{e I'll#;i;}iil l.,ii$ttll'f'l i!ffii'Jl;

filiH;ii,' I ill]:ffi_ | ?nm:r::. I iiw+iu 1,,*%1;_

l,Dr447
1 SC{90
5 t-2d1 006
0l)I."2d8180
09x)d8186
0t)t)d0186
18Fzd

I r] (J00

6t)I)d16;.15
75h-2t11722
77b)d;'i.''i(i
78Ir2rl52S

j,38tr'2(t:Iti70
Lqfrl.zd3:14,
'r ()3l)al;,:i(i
111 tr)d3377
12uI,2(13624
I :l( ll-2(131 4 0
13r l,*2d.3:iitg
l 62t'2d3318
193t:d3133
30I]1fA{23
30RtAE36
37B'tA231
2flTCt722
162ARllll?rr
9A?11$n

-a27-
r!8iittS20:t
r76LII10UB
r52SO50;l
s285US5;l:J
s76LE!)28
s;i2SC4()7
cc20,l ltnl

s17,\ Iln 51 3
s60l-.2t10{
s2l A Ilrrisii
cc63!'ltl:Jii{
cc22Altn71 l
(liS lr'.trl:l').1{
(l:llAIlnsl:l

{)l lr'z(io,ltil)
f,2['l(13(il 4
lJirA Iln:rl9il
151l,?dr 71 u

(ll;l lI,'S6(i(i:l
:'ilt li\slr(i(i{
t{.''izlltilTl}rr
4Ai:t!1\
-8:l t-

I 30!'s:t01C
52(lu A:l{ 1

1S3StD2 r 2

;;il,i;' | 2l4La?R8 | rior.zntz I iirSrrii | 151AR7ti3n

r;';;;;o, | 3!!t2d7!2 | 8l'53616 I rieNNrezr I -gOO-

131tr',zd1875
13St:d3839
142r2d3808
144t-2d

[ 1075:]

ifri'H,e?' I locq t1384nl 10?SEZ98 ls27I]'ltA 1ir4X)d31O?tl

ryiF,'_' I *il,ii#"|:ilffis I :a#ilill krti#i
flUlrffit0Z$
I I 5;-,1'2azlr'.:0
Itr,lrzazs:o
[ri;r:nrs: r
d15?['2d3S.1r]H#,,,,,,r" I, iiiljiii$? l:iiffij,,ff I ilHfi Hffi I 

"il.ij,m,r

ffiii+: l'??',.ll",nolliigtfst I iigsrBlI I il+;llh'
ils:,s"',,1 

I iiiilftT; I 3s#;g8;r I ffiffi$iflii lrdr,n:;i;-205- | agswioo I iil'r,i:i;;;; I ;Airt;#; l.i;zs,:n:rct
H9g?I1'l l?i,tltlig, | ilii;i'6i;i I ;6;in;?i; l"zoin'eo;

!91:.111 rzzanrnrn I ;ri{;.i6d I iffi'rt;iil | riienrr,r,r

[d_? 1,,;!=!;, I !iH,,.,f.J: l,ifr$!il].| i 16ffi I +?t

frr*$n l.;*l,iri*, I li[i]i'f I iifiiliiii l.r.iF,irhri{pun.ruu ffi;i;;il;" | ;oiii.;il- I ;ii,i,,i;a8; | ,i:rr.-z,r,uzi

---!!t-= ls52SC457 | 120co1186 I ]4tAR I 0{t)d2rJ02

201r2d5301
239[',zd2167
2{5F2d534ti
10t's51(x)9

46US
l 10< 1,

llsJrL l0D((i
74 SClor..i'

i1

56ryd? G1 l"iiir,iz-a.s9o I zozrnnne
!Bt2dr364 l zSrsr:rztl I lzecbss l rlzatt I zrl*zazlrx;
flt'?t2i1(l I iiin3,,ni,itg I rrrce,tzSZur!'rrlz;lrr I :lt)AItil{501) | 1t)0At7g7 I rt22rrrl 7R}-Jrl2lfit-r
8]UC:rlSlXll ?st,:rrto..:o I rruOnzl;ii I -t0O- I t trit.t,tsetZ

-739- I 6zt'2d1.{2 | o2Nw4E5 J (i4l,.2drr94tl .lzgl:d:rso.t

5
7()l
0l lr2SBUsrrix I zoiivzrri I srpz,t?ln I rirr.ir*g.rc I iirii:,iriii

?fl.}:I078 I -Zs4- I l;i{I(a1(}fit) I 6ol'z,tzxrr2 I l::9t'J,t,,l6ri
52sct4?2 | r-,+r.iza,ir,rs I l21r,jd2()il I i;ziia,resol r;;r..z.lrsru
?{PIIR{S8 If,S}.2,tr,titf I Bt-,lM"h2tI I ti:tz,lr19?6 I titl)ns.:?t

29t-RI)76
xt5usr250:ltliuSt95!
9:.rr}{lo4l
6xS(tl1lfri

8?r2d5(i03 I 154Me154 I 65X)d6915 I 29Ii'l'A576
44



l. Crlmlnal law @997.
fn modcrn lerlllll practiee, lvrit of cr-

l'or corAnt nolris is substitutcd l_ry rnotion in
l}aEe./')

I 2. ffrlmlnal law F997.
V,Orr*L1*O**1rO's, or equivatcnt

,notio,r@.

G)Cltrtn"l 16v/ o=!g7.
Convict.iori havilg boor affirnrcd on ap-

63 II'DDIi]ITAI, RIITOR'I'IiII,, 2d SI'NIINS

It lrppcarcrl that cf idcDcc, which tvas
ont of hond at trial, was lino\.n so to be
orr first of three dnys of trial; that some
of nrislrlncotl documetrts n.er.c printcd pub-
Iienliolrs n'lrich erlukl hnvc bcou rcpllccd;
thnt sccondary cvidencc nright Itave beeu
ollr.rorl of conlents of private plpers;
thnt most of lattcr rrcre useful only for
imptachment and rvould not requir.e nerv
trial if ncrvl.y discor-crctl i that rro motion

, was nrndc to strslcrrrl or dclny trial, and
no elTort to strl,ply los:1 . n,,,1 thrrt lro l.c-
Iief rvas sought b.y lrrotion for lrerv tliul or
on nppcal; application to apply bclorv for.tr'rit of error corArn nobis bcing madc aft-
er t'onviction was allirmed.

ripinal law Ca997.

fniled to

nobis rvill not avail hirn.

Appeal from the Distlict Court of the
IInited. States for thc Norllrcrn District of
Texasl William B. Shcppard, Judge.

Frcd Strang was couvictod of using the
mails to tlcfraud, and, lris conviction having
been al[r'rrrcd upon appcal [.15 f.(2d) 1006],
he applies for leave to file in the l)istrict
Court a petition for rvrit of error coram no-
bis.

r\pplication denied.

J. P. trlillcr, of Dallas, Tcx., antl J. Ii.
trfaccrr, of I,'ort Worth, 'l'ex., fol appcllanl

Norman A. Dodgo, U. S. Atty., of Fort
Worth, Tex.

Ilclore BfiYAN, SIBLEY, and IIUT-
CIIESON, Circuit Judgcs.

SIBLI,IY, Circuit Judge.

[1-81 On October 10, 1929, ]'r.ed Strangwas
convictcd in a District Court for using the
nrail5 to dcfraurl, anil btought his case by
appeal to this eoult, l'hcrc il rvas allirmed
on Dcccrnbt-.r 15, 1930. 45 Ir.(2d) 1000. On
Octolrcr 2+, 1931, rvlrilc in cxccution of his
scrrtt,rrcr', hc, tltlorrgh lris counscl, trrado in
llris r,ourt a rrroLiorr l'or. lclrvc to lilc in thc
District Court n pctition for a rvrit of er-r.or
coram rrobis, thtrlc to ol;tain a new trial bc-
causo of the absoluto rlisquali{ication of a

,lrrror rvho \vlls rn rrnJrrtlrl,rrrcd eonvit:1, ntrd
Irt'crruse hc lrrrrl rliscovcrcd ccrtnin docurncnts
frrlly cxlrilrit,cd rvhieh hnrl brrcrr lost during
lho tlitl arr<l corrsorlrrurtll' rvcrc rrol used in
cvidcnce, and u'hich il is clainred lvould pro-.

f320

STRANG v. UNITED STATES.
No. 6348.

d
fr
el,

el
l'l

v.
fI
(ji

0ti
l:l
lll'
elr
C.

]l
Ct
lcr
thi

' Pl,
rl rl
th,
BN,

Pci
f,a'
92
thrr
aIn
er)'
pi,
ul'l'
irrg
pr':,
U.:
v. I

at
colr
Str,
v.i
Per'
62.
sar:.

reqr

iur'
was
Iear',
C.
prc:
wai'
woi;
qual
uto i

88lll,
of r,

effe,
dis,1,
Iaw i

Stlt
molr
defr,
tionr

Circuit Court of
Nov.

(Jirc u i t,

bis belorv rnust lle sor

appcars pro.
poscd attecli on.juilgmerrt is t11cr!lorlg.11g._

4. Crimlnal law @=997.

Disqurlilicatiou of juror propter clrr-
fectum, waivcd by prrreeerling tvith triul after
learning thereof, vould not be ground rcquir-
ilrg ncrv trial, if tinrt,ll- urged, and henee not
for error eo*rnr nobis (Jud. Code S 275 l2.8
uscA s 4r1l).

5. Jury C>l l0( | ).
Juror's disqualifieation as unltalrloncd

conrict was rvaiverl by pr.oeectling rvith trinl
aftcr lcarning thc'rcof (Jud. Corle S 275 [28
USCA $ 4111).

6. Courts @>337.

Jurofs .disqualiliention, though not
rrnivahlo unr'ler statc luv, could bo rvaived in
ferlcral court (Jud. Codc S 275 l'25 USCA S
4111 ).

7. Courts €=337.
Tinre tnd rnode of ob.jcctirrg to disquali-

fication and efftrct upon verdict of participa-
tion by disqualilicd juror ar,c governtxl ll.y
cornmon larv, not, statc larv (Jud. Codo $ 27S
[28 USCA S 411]).

8. Crlminal law @=923(2).
Jury G>127,

At cornrnon larv, ob,iuclion to juror
pro1rfijv dcfcctrrnr, lris irrrlrrr.tiality no! bc-
ing tluc,stioncd, ruust bc rnade beforo verdict,
anrl is rrot cnuso for nerv tlinl though prc-
viously unknorvn (Jud. Codo g 275 [28 US
cA $ 4111).

@ Crtmtnat law O=9g7.

'IhrtI dt,l't'rrtl

thcre bcin
propcr dili

tunit,

nrcnts Iost dulitr( Lti,tL hcld uot crourrd for



' nbsence ol
r) e.

ivlri<rh wrs
rr so to be
lhat some

,'in I ed puh-
r roplacctl;
lrtve been
o nnl)ors;
rl only for
,rlrrire ncrv
I d motion
trinl, anil

Irat no rc-
,cry triul or
r lr,r'lorv for
I lltade aft-

,nf ing oppor-
lt's nttention
crror coram

Ciourt of the
n District of
'Iudge.
of using the
iction having
P.(2d) 10061,
, the District
r'0r coram no-

t., aud J. R.
,'appellant.

\tty., of tr'ort

, anal HUT-

,l St.rnng was
i'..r' usi ng the

lr i< c:r.o lr.v

lrllirrrrrl
l(X)ti. On

. rrtion o[ his
,r..r'1, marle irt
to filo in the
\rrit of orror
rrew trial bc-

i{ication of n

I r,onviet, utrl
,irr rloeurnents
rr lost tlrrrirrg
re rrot ttscd itt
,.rl lvould plo-

W0OLI.Olll) llltALltY CO. v. ROSIC 821
ri3 Ir.(2d) n:at

duco a rlilTcrcnt rcsrrlt. The coruuion-lary not crusc for a nelv triul thougb prcviously
rcmc(l]' ol rvrit of el'r'or colrnr nobis ilr Inrv unknol'n. Roush v. Urritcd States, supla,
cases civil nnrl criminal, and tlg-ErLiguLrr and cascs cite(l thcr.ein.
eqors_in fac! l'lrich it rnight bo us({ to cor-
t'cct, ate exrnrincxl at length in Unite.rl Sl:rtes
v. l'Lti.Beri 27 Ircd. Cas. p. 561, No. 16{)56;
[Jnite<[ Stntoq v l\I"yar, 9115 TT. S. 55. 3.ir S.
Ct. :l 6. 59 L. I,lrl. llJOi/ rn(l Iflnrl) v. Sl:rtt',

-

00 l,'ln. 8.14, 107 So. 51i0, l-r35; 16 C. .L p.
1326, $ 3118. The wlit is suhstitntcrl in
modcln fcrlclnl practice bv a motiorr in tho
cnse. Urrilcrl Slatcs v. PIuurer, 27 [orl,
Ors, p:rge 551, No. 10055; Urritod Stales v.
l'[a1'er, sup)'a, 2:]5 II. S. at prgc 67, 35 S.
Ct,. 16, 59 L. Ir(1. 129. Tlro rvrit, or equivfl-
lertt motion, ttplttJ:-.U:_-thc tr'i:rl eorrrt, hut
this eourt h,,r,-,4; nff]iliilfro . rffi .n,r,-
pluinctl of, nnd the trinl eourt bcing under

Ie-10] r
tho thrca davs of the trial, Some of the rnis,+

an clcction

-

nt to nroeerrl

pllteod rlocurnents wcrc. plinteil pulrliortions
s'lrich cotrll havo bccu ropllced. Sccondnry
evidencc rnight have bcen offered of the con-
lents of the private I)apcrs. trIost of the
Iattcl rverc uscful onlv for imncncTffieiiTi-d
rvouLl not rcouiro a ncrv trial if newlv dis-
('@ No nrotion rvrs rrlil(le to suspcnd or
<lelay 1,ho trial, a.nd no clfolt to supply tho
loss. No relicf 1vfts sought by a motion for
new triol or on tho rppcal. Tllqre lvas ap-

rvith the evidence which he had. and ccrtainlv
nn@inmnlii.ghis

f,

92 Fla. 740,110 So. 259. Wc inelinc to thirrl<
that the'grounds of the prescnt application
aro not such as rvoulrl autholize n rvrit of
ertor col'am nobis at colnrrlon llrrv after cx-
piration of the torrn, but aro snch ns ean he
ulged only by rnotion lor a ncrv trial dur'-
ing thc term. United Stntes v. I\Iayer, su-
pral I)clarvare', etc., R.. (lo. v. Rollstab, 276
U. S. l, 48 S. Ct. 203,72 L. Ird. 439; Iltlley
v. Unitcd Statos (C. 0. A.) 260 ri'. 3S:l; or
at the latrxt by nuthoritv o[ the nppcllato
court p('r)ding an nyrpeal. Ilnrtin v. Unitcrl
States (C. Ci. A.) 17 1,'.(2d) 973; Laneastt'r
v. Ilnited States (C. C. A.) 39 F.(zd) 30;
Perry v. United States (C. C. 

^.) 
39 f.(2d)

62. But no dmision of thlt question is neees-
sary beeauso the grounds are insuflicient to
r.qrirn fl new mThe
juror's disrlualifieation rvc huvc alrcndv hr'ld
was rvaived by proceerling with the trial after
learning of it. Strarrg v. Uniterl States (C.
C. A.) 45 l'.(2d) 1006. Tho lnint norv
pressed that tho julor's disqualification is not
waivablo undcr tho Tcxas lal' is rvithout
woight in the federal conrts. While the
qualilieations of jurors are hy fedcral stnt-
ute (28U. S. C. $ 4rl [281]S0A $ 4111) tho
6ame &s in tho state eourt, t.hc tirnc lnd tnotle
of ob.jecting to n disrlualilication enal tho
effect upon tlre verdict of participation by a
disqualified juror are not govcrnr:il by stato
law but by the common lnw. Roush v. Unitctl
States (C. 0. A.) 47 lr.('ld) 444. At corn-
mon lnl nn oh,je'etion to t .jrrror proqrler
defecturtr, his irnplrtinlity not boing rlucs-
tioned, must lle made before ve'r'dict, and is

dofcrrsc. "lVlrcre the pelitioncr ha,l oppoFl
tunity to bring to the atterrtion of the court I
lhc rnntter complainc(l o[ arrd f:riled to do so. I
thc 'rvrib of error eorarrr nobis rvill rrot avail I

him." State v. Starrlcy, 215 IIo. 536, 125 |

S. W. 475. Scc, also, Larnb v. StaLc, supla;
Wheeler v; State, 158 Ild. 687, 63 N. li. 975,
and Asbell v. Statc, 62 lian. 209, 61 P. 690.

Application dcniecl._-----.-

WOOLFORD REALTY CO., tnc., v. ROSE,
Collector of lnternal Revenue.

No. 6101.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Irifth Circuit.
Nov. 13, 1931.

lnternal revenue €=7(19).
Nct losses accruing to co4roration prior

to alfiliation eould not be rleductcd in subse-
qucnt ,vcar in coniputing net income of other
mernbcr of a{Iiliated group (Itevcnue Act
1926, S$ 206(a) (b),232,234,240t 26 USCA
$S 937 (a) (b), 984, 966, and 993).

Appcal frorn tho Distlict Court of thc
United Statcs for the Northern Disirict of
Georgia; Samuel !I. Siblcy, Judge.

Action by tho Woolford Rcalty Com-
pan.y, Ine., against J. T. Iloso, Colllctor of
Jntcnral Ilevciruc. Jurlgnrurrt of tlisrnissal

It14 l,'.(2tl) 850], and plaintifi appcals.
AIIiuned.

rvhich rvas out of hand
o be on the first of

duty to cxmrtc the mnrrtl:rtc, it is ncccssa5l
thnt lenve be lrerc soucht hcforo nttntrl<ins it.

ren it n

i'. Sta-tflsrpla; Washington v. State,