EAI^PH V. UNITED STATES. 695 �. plaintifE in error, of liis guilt under the indictment, and a verdict of guilty by the jurywas rendered and recprded, a^it would seem, with his consent, openly given in court. The motion for a new trial was ad- dressed to the discretion of the court, and no error, therefore, for over- ruling it can be assigned. The district coiart had the beat oppoftunity of judging of the effeot of thea.ffidavit8 which were filedin support of the motion. It had heard the testimony of all the witnesses on the trial. It had observed the conduct and demeanor of the'plaintiflf in error during the trial. It was, therefore, better able to judge of the truth of the statements made in the affidavits than thia court, and the rule, which has boen eatablished by the supreme court of the United States applies here, that the opinion of the court upon a motion for a new trial is a matter'of discretion and not error. It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that his righta were sacrificed b^ the action of his counsel in the district court. Of that the dis- t)fict court was a, competent judge, and it is to be observed that the cpunsel himself, who acted for the plaintiff in error in the district court, was not rbeard, and his affidavit was not taken, a.nd therefore his statement Of the facts, and of the circumstances which operat^d uponhim, is not.before us. He is said to have relief upon a view which he toOk of the law of the case which he thought conclusive, namely, that there was no statute which required an affidavit of the .kind which is the subject of controversy in this case. If that wereso, then it was a misapprehension, we think,.of the law which declares that certain officers of the treasury department, as well as the aecre- tary himself, may make certain rules and regulations relatrng to the duties of theirseveral offices. There can be no doubt it was compe- tent for a regulation of the kind in controversy here to be made by the proper offieer Of the treasury, namely, that before a bond should be accepted, wbich might authorize the delivery, under the lp,w then in force, of stampson credit toa manufacturer of matohes, an affidavit should be made showing the responsibility of the sureties, and there- fore this was an affidavit authorized by law; and if the statements contained in it were f aise, and knownto be soby the person making them, then. upon it perjury could be assigned, The judgment and sentence of the district court will be affirmed. ��� �
