How has the language of the indictment been interpreted in the context of the charge of possession of illegal art objects?

Appellant does not contend that the language of the indictment omits any essential element of the offense. Nor do we understand him to argue that the language is so imprecise that he was unable to prepare his defense;⁶ if "art objects" is itself an indefinite phrase its generality is limited by the allegations as to the number, value, and origin of the objects, and the date and place of their importation details, incidentally, which the record indicates were drawn from an inventory prepared with the assistance of appellant himself. Appellant made no claim of uncertainty before trial, nor of surprise as the trial progressed. Cf. Dunbar v. United States, 156 U.S. 185, 191-192, 15 S.Ct. 325, 39 L.Ed. 390 (1895). Compare Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 433, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932).