UNITED szruias v. Dounnrr. 29
defective, uncertain, and insufficient, and that no crime is legally
and formally set forth, without specifying any particular defect. I
shall consider, therefore, only those objections made to it by counsel
at the hearing.
One ground of objection, common to all the counts except the sev-
enth, is that the indictment does not set forth the special means used
in aiding the illegal acts of Hayes. But the rule is well settled that,
in an indictment for aiding or assisting in the commission of a crime,
it is not necessary to state the particular acts constituting the aid or
assistance. These are matters of evidence to make out the offense
at the trial, and it is not necessary to aver them in the indictment.
U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460; U. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360.
Another objection common to all the counts is that it is not al-
leged that the election was held in the Fourth congressional district.
The words of the indictment in each count are: "At Boston, in said
district of Massachusetts, at an election for a representative in the
congress of said United States for the Fourth congressional district of
the commonwealth of Massachusetts, instituted and held in said Bos-
ton, on said fourth day of November, in accordance with the laws of ’
said commonwealth, and with the laws of the said United States."
This is a suiiicient averment that the election was held in the Fourth
congressional district, which is a part of Boston. The offense with
which the defendant is charged is laid in Boston, in this judicial dis-
trict, within the jurisdiction of this court.
The rule governing the courts of the United States in construing
criminal indictments is that no indictment is to be deemed insufn-
cient, nor the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon, be af-
fected, by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only,
which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant. Rev. St.
§ 1025. The court will take notice that the Fourth congressional dis-
trict includes a part of Boston. St. 1882, c. 250. If this is a defect,
which is by no means clear, it is one of form only, and is cured by the `
statute. It is impossible that the defendant can suffer prejudice from
it. The same answer may be made to the objection to the sixth and
seventh counts: that it is not alleged that the Fourth precinct of the
Seventh ward of the city of Boston is within the Fourth congressional
district. By the statute of the state above cited, of which the court
is bound to take notice, the Seventh ward of Boston, which must of
necessity include the Fourth precinct of that ward, is made part of the
Fourth congressional district. To this may be added that if these
counts should be adjiidged defective for the reasons assigned, the
verdict being general, the other counts are sufficient to sustain a judg-
ment. Clifton v. U. S., 4 How. 242, 250; Snyder v. U. S., 112 U. S.
216; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118.
Objection is made to the seventh count that it does not allege that
the defendant violated any duty as inspector of elections; but it is
charged in distinct terms that the defendant knowingly and willfully