AMERICAN LAW REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 10 MITCHELL C. PERARA, Plff. in Err., V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit — August 28, 1916. 1. It is error to instruct in a criminal case, after stating the rule that good reputation may raise a reasonable doubt requiring acquittal, that men of the best reputation may indulge in secret crimes, and that accused must have had a good reputation to secure the position in which he committed the alleged offense, that, if it is proved that accused did commit crime, the fact that he was of highest character, so far as the public knew, would not excuse him, so that the jury ought to consider whether the mere fact that, so far as the public knew, a man's character was good, would raise a doubt justifying acquittal, if the evidence otherwise shows that he committed a crime. [See note on this question beginning on page 8.] — rulings on former appeal law of case. 2. Rulings by the appellate court upon the question of venue and acquittal on one count of the indictment as bar to second trial under the rule of former jeopardy become the law of the case and are conclusive on second appeal. ERROR to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Trieber, J.) to review a judgment convicting defendant of stealing certain mail while acting as railway postal clerk. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Argued before Sanborn, Adams, and Carland, Circuit Judges. Messrs. George W. Murphy, E. L. 10 A.L.R.-1. McHaney, and S. A. Jones, for plaintiff in error: If the defendant was guilty under the first count, he was guilty under the second, and his acquittal under the second is a bar to his further prosecution under the first. Re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 177, 33 L. ed. 118, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 672; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 L. ed. 872; State v. Dewees, 76 S. C. 72, 56 S. E. 674, 11 Ann. Cas. 991; State v. Cooper, 13 N. J. L. 361, 25 Am. Dec. 490; Dinkey v. Com. 17 Pa. St. 126, 55 Am. Dec. 542; Fisher v. Com. 1 Bush, 211, 89 Am. Dec. 620; Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8, 58 Am. Dec. 528; United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150, 8 L. ed. 640. When the offense is committed in a state and district, the Constitution fixes the prosecution and trial in the state and district where the offense is alleged to have been committed. If two counties or two places are alleged as the locality of commission, the words "then and there," or "said county or place," or "the county or district aforesaid," are not sufficient. 1 Bishop, New Crim. Proc. 232; 22 Cyc. 308, 322; Edwards v. Com. 19 Pick. 124; State v. Jackson, 39 Me. 291; Com. v. Wheeler, 162 Mass. 429, 38 N. E. 1115; State v. McCracken, 20 Mo. 411; Jane v. State, 3 Mo. 61; State v. Hardwick, 2 Mo. 226; Cain v. State, 18 Tex. 391; Bell v. Com. 8 Gratt. 600; United States v. Marx, 122 Fed. 964; United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black, 484, 17 L. ed. 225; United States v. Dawson, 15 How. 488, 14 L. ed 784, Fed. Cas. No. 14,933; Connor v. State, 29 Fla. 455, 30 Am. St. Rep. 126, 10 So. 891; 2 Hale, P. C. 180; 1 Chitty, Crim. Law. 160. Messrs. W. H. Martin and W. H. Rector for the United States. Adams, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: An indictment, containing five counts, was found against Perara, plaintiff in error, in the district court of the United States for the western division of the eastern district of Arkansas. There have been two trials, and this is the second writ of error in the case. At the first trial, the court directed a verdict of not guilty on the third, fourth, and fifth counts, and submitted the case to the jury on the first and second counts only. The first charged defendant with stealing certain mail matter while acting as a railway postal clerk, and the second charged him with embezzling the same. The jury found the defendant guilty on the first, and not guilty on the second count, and judgment was entered accordingly. This court, on the first writ of error, reversed the judgment for error in the charge of the court, and remanded it for another trial. Perara v. United States, 136 C. C. A. 623, 221 Fed. 213. Some other errors were assigned, but none of them sustained. At the second trial the first count only, for stealing the mail, was submitted to the jury, and the defendant was again found guilty, and now prosecutes this writ of error. The important errors now assigned and argued relate (1) to the question of venue, and (2) to the ruling on a plea of former adjudication. or double jeopardy, resulting from the acquittal of defendant on the charge of embezzlement. These questions were considered by us at the former hearing in appealseparate opinions, Appeal-rulings on former law of ease. and on a motion for rehearing, and were adjudged adversely to the defendant. That judgment, being unreversed, became the law of the case, and cannot be the subject of further consideration. In confirmation of our former judgment, however, reference may be made to the conclusions reached and the principles stated in Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632, 59 L. ed. 1153, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 712, Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U. S. 625, 59 L. ed. 1151, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 710, and Morgan v. Sylvester, 146 C. C. A. 82, 231 Fed. 886, cases analogous to this, and substantially presenting the questions now referred to. Defendant also assigns error to the following portion of the charge to the jury: "The defendant has introduced evidence for the purpose of showing his good character for honesty, integrity, and morality. Such evidence is admissible and should be considered by the jury; and, if it is of such a nature as to lead the jury to believe that it is improbable that |