HARRIS, ALIAS SMITH, AND GREEN v. UNITED STATES

HARRIS, ALIAS SMITH, AND GREEN v. UNITED STATES. ERROI! AM) CERTIORARI,TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF.APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 602. Argued January 7, 8, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913. Hoke v. Unitpd States, ante, p. 308, followed to effect that the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 is constitutional. Bennett v. United States', ante, p. 333, followed'to effect that variances between" the indictment and proof which did not prejudice defend-. - ants 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 Fed. Rep. 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.. Max Levy for plaintiff in error. Mr. • Assistant Attorney 'General Harr for the United States-. See abstract of argument for plaintiffs in error in Bennett v. United States, ante, p. 334. See abstract of argument-for United States in Hoke v. United States, ante, p. 313. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice McKenna] 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 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 Gréen 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 Fed. Rep. 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. 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. 333. The úéxt point made by defendants is that defendant Harris was entitled 'to an acquittal because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdiet of guilty. In passing on this contention the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and .added its judgment of. its suffi-. ciency to that of the jury. We refer'to the opinion of the court and concur in its comment and conclusion. Judgment affirmed.