20? U.S. Ol?nlon of t? CouP. with the issue to be determined. It does not present a dis- ' tinct point of law, clearly stated, which can be decided with- out passingupon the weight or effect of all the evidence out of which the question arises. The question certified is rather a condefused, argumentative narrative of the facts upon which, in' the opinion of the judges of the 'Ctrcult Court of Appeals, depends the validity of the llve-stock contract in suit. Thus, practically, the whole case is brought here by the certified question, and we are, in effect, asked to indicate what, under all the facts stated, should be the final judgment. It is, obvi- ously, as if the court had been asked, generally, upon a state- ment of all the facts, to determine what, Upon those facts, is the law of the case." 205 U.S. 444, 454. The certificate in the present case is objectionable upon the ground that it does not set forth propositions of law, clearly stated, which may he answered without reference to all the facts, but mixed questions of law and fact which require us to construe various acts of Congress, and, in the light of all the testimony in ?he case, determine whether the accused could be held guilty of any offe nse le?.lly pun?able by the United States. It is as if the court were asked what, upon the whole ease as. sent up, should have been the verdict and judg- ment in the trial court. The certi, ficate is defcetive ahd must be disn?ssed, because not in conformity to the statute.
�
