
    STEPHENS v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    February 9, 1920.)
    No. 3349.
    In jictment and information t&wkey;88 — Sufficient averment op intent.
    An indictment charging that an act was done knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sufficiently charges criminal intent.
    Criminal prosecution by the United States against E. A. Stephens. On motion for rehearing.
    Denied.
    For former opinion, see 261 Fed. 590, —— C. C. A.-.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error urges that the indictment “does not allege any intent whatsoever.” It is true that it does not use the word “intent,” but the allegation that defendant knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously did attempt to pause and create insubordination and disloyalty in the military and naval forces, by doing the things charged, sufficiently charged that the altempt was done with willful and unlawful purpose. Bise v. United States, 144 Fed. 374, 74 C. C. A. 1, 7 Ann. Cas. 165; People v. Butler, 1 Idaho, 231; State v. Rechnitz, 20 Mont. 488, 52 Pac. 264; State v. Clark, 32 Nev. 145, 104 Pac. 593, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 754; Atkinson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 30 S. W. 1064; State v. Hagar, 50 W. Va. 370, 40 S. E. 393; Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9, 50 South. 534, 138 Am. St. Rep. 91; State v. Daly, 41 Or. 515, 70 Pac. 706; State v. Hughes, 31 Nev. 270, 102 Pac. 562; People v. Willett, 102 N. Y. 251, 6 N. E. 301.

Motion denied.  