
    K. MATUSAKE v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    October 25, 1926.)
    No. 4665.
    1. Criminal law <§=>1136.
    Defendant, who throughout trial denied control of premises searched, held not entitled to question in appellate court validity of search warrant or admissibility of evidence disclosed by search.
    2. Criminal law <§=>1137(5).
    Defendant, himself offering in evidence paper taken from his person at time of arrest, cannot complain of such use.
    Tn Error to tbe District Court of tbe United States for tbe Northern Division of tbe Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.
    K. Matusake was convicted of violating tbe National Prohibition Act, and be brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Adam Beeler and A. G. McBride, both of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
    Thos. P. Revelle, U. S. Atty., and C. T. McKinney, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
    Before RUDKIN, Circuit Judge, and DIETRICH and KERRIGAN, District Judges.
   RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction under the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138¼ et seq.). There are but three assignments of error — tbe first, based on an order denying a motion to suppress evidence and quash a search warrant; tbe second, on tbe admission in evidence of property seized under tbe search warrant; and tbe third, on an order denying a motion for a new trial. Tbe questions thus presented are wholly without merit. It appears from tbe record that the plaintiff in error throughout the trial denied that be bad' possession or control of the premises searched, and, if so, bis constitutional rights were not invaded, and he is in no position to question either the validity of the warrant or the legality of the search. For tbe like reason tbe liquor found upon tbe search was properly admitted in evidence. Some reference is made to a paper taken from tbe person of the plaintiff in error upon his arrest, but the record further shows that this paper was offered in evidence by tbe plaintiff in error, and not by tbe government. No new question was raised or presented by the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.  