The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 44

%% 272 FEDERAL REPORTER
bottles were shown him, and after he had stated ,that the initials on
them were his they were received in evidence over the defendant's
objection, and exceptions were taken. The defendant's counsel stated
that he objected to their reception in evidence upon the ground that
the evidence showed they were seized illegally, and not in due process
of law, and in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant,
and at a time and on an occasion when the defendant was not present.
There had been no knowledge shown on the part of the defendant of
any transaction on the part of the bartender.
After these exhibits were admitted in evidence, the witness stated
that he had made an analysis of the contents of each, and ascertained
the alcoholic content of each, and he proceeded to state what the al-
coholic content was. The lowest any one of them contained was 18.57
per cent. and the highest was 38.36 per cent. The admission of this
evidence has been assigned for error.
[2] It is established law that a collateral inquiry into the mode in
which evidence has been obtained will not be allowed, when the ques-
tion is raised for the first time at the trial. Silverthorne Lumber Com-
pany v. United States. 251 U. S. 385, 392, 40 Sup. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed.
319; Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 395. 396, 34 Sup. Ct.
341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834. Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177;
Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, 24 Sup. Ct. 372, 48 L. Ed. 575.
The rule is stated in Greenleaf on Evidence, vol 1, 254a, as follows:
"It may be mentioned in this place that though papers and other subjects
of evidence may have been illegally taken from the possession of the party
against whom they are offered or otherwise unlawfully obtained, this is no
valid objection to their admissibility if they are pertinent to the issue. The
court will not take notice how they were obtained, whether lawfully or unlaw-
fully, nor will it form an issue to determine that question."
In Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 3, 2183, p. 2955, that writer says
that-
"It has long been established that the admissibility of evidence is not af-
fected by the illegality of the means through which the party has been enabled
to obtain the evidence. The illegality is by no means condoned; it is merely
ignored."
He had previously stated that-
"A judge does not hold court in a street car to do summary justice upon a
passenger who fraudulently evades payment of his fare; and upon the same
principle, he does not attempt, in the course of a specific litigation, to investi-
gate and punish all offences which incidentally cross the path of that litiga-
tion. Such a practice might be consistent with the primitive system of justice
under an Arabian sheikh; but it does not comport with our own system of
law."
A defendant who thinks, himself wronged by a seizure of property
belonging to him, which he expects will be used against him later as
evidence on a criminal charge, is not without adequate remedy. He
should apply to-the court for the return of the property alleged to have
been illegally seized, and the issue of the legality of the seizure can then
be determined in accordance with law and in an orderly manner. In
what has been said we do not mean to imply that, where liquor is