Hoke v. United States, ante, p.
227 U. S. 308,
followed to effect that the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 is
constitutional.
Bennett v. United States, ante, p.
227 U. S. 333,
followed to effect that variances between the indictment and proof
which did not prejudice defendants as to names of women transported
for immoral purposes in violation of the White Slave Traffic Act
are not fatal.
The point of variance between indictment and proof relied on in
this case not having been made in the trial court or circuit court
of appeals, comes too late when made in this Court.
194 F. 634 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality and construction
of the White Slave Act and the validity of an indictment and
conviction thereunder, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Indictment under the Act of June 25, 1910. It contains three
counts charging defendants (we shall so call plaintiffs
Page 227 U. S. 341
in error and petitioners) with transporting and causing to be
transported in interstate commerce certain named women, for the
purpose of prostitution.
After a demurrer to the indictment was overruled and trial upon
the plea of not guilty, defendants were convicted, and defendant
Harris was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and defendant
Green for one year, both to pay costs of prosecution, and judgment
was entered accordingly. The judgment was affirmed by the circuit
court of appeals. 194 F. 634.
The question of the constitutionality of the law was raised as
in the cases which we have just decided, and nothing need be added
to the opinion expressed in No. 381,
Hoke v. United States.
ante, p.
227 U. S. 308, and
we will pass to the errors assigned.
It is contended that there is a variance between the allegations
and proof, in that the women transported were named in the
indictment as Nellie Stover and Stella Larkins, and that the proof
shows the latter's name was Estelle Bowles and the right name of
Nellie Stover was Myrtie Watson. The point was not made either in
the trial court or in the court of appeals. It comes therefore too
late.
But see, however, the opinion in No. 603,
Bennett v. United States, ante, p.
227 U. S. 333.
The next point made by defendants is that defendant Harris was
entitled to an acquittal because of the insufficiency of the
evidence to support a verdict of guilty. In passing on this
contention, the court of appeals reviewed the evidence and added
its judgment of its sufficiency to that of the jury. We refer to
the opinion of the court and concur in its comment and
conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.
