revenue agents after they had been advised of the nature and scope of the investigation, substantially as is set forth in the counts of the indictment under which they were respectively convicted.3


3
To establish the falsity of these statements of appellants and their materiality to the matters under investigation, the Government relied on the testimony of the two revenue agents, who testified over objections of appellants to these facts:


4
On July 23, 1954, they were in the residence of said Dominguez, who operated two lottery companies.  Dominguez answered the ringing of his doorbell and came back to the table where Dominguez' auditor was at work, and removed from a large bag of money, sixty dollars in currency which Agent Perry counted and marked.  Dominguez placed the money inan envelope and marked a small d in the corner.4  He took the envelope and delivered it to appellant Brooks, who was waiting outside the door at the top of the steps.  Agent Cabellero had placed himself where he could see what transpired and both testified to the salient facts.  They observed outside of Dominguez' residence a green Nash automobile bearing the license number mentioned in the Maureau indictment.  Appellant Maureau was waiting outside for Brooks, and the two got into the front seat of the automobile and drove off, appellant Maureau doing the driving.  Upon this proof they were tried on consolidated separate indictments and were found guilty of the charges outlined in the indictments quoted in Footnote 3 supra.


5
Relying upon certain