UNITllID STATBS V. OLAYPOOL.
orable title, and that the property should be subj'ected to these ments.. I am so clear .upon this that I will not allow the defendant Mrs. Follansbee to answer this same matter. The plea of Charles Follansbee, Frank H.Follansbee, and erick C. Tyler will be ov:erruled,' with leave to them to set up the matter oUhepleain their answer.· The plea of Mrs. Follansbee will be overruled, with leave to the bill upon .the merits.
In the act of congress defining the crime of obstructing the passage ol' the mail, the terms" knOWingly and willfully" are intended tb signifyihat at the time of committing the ofIense defendant must have known what he wag do· hlg, and with such knowledge proceeded to cOlnmit the O,ffensl,l.charged, and .are used in the statute in cOntradistinctIon innocent, ignorant, uninten, ' tional. ' . .
SAME-IC PASSAGE 'OF ·THEM'AtLS."
By the terms" passage of the mails" are meant the transmission of mail matter from the timer the same is deposited in a place. designated by law or by the rules of the post-office !1epartment up to the timethe same is delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. ",., 'I'
Mail matter in the post-office, ready for delivery, and there for that purpose; is.on its passage, within the meaning of the la)V, and to interfere with it 110 a, to obstruct and retard its delivery is. an offense. '
Where a party commits an unprovoked assault upon a postmaster, the necessary result whereof was an obstruction and retarding of the p/l.8S11ge of the mail, the law presumes that the defendant intended by act the .result which followed, and the offense is complete; but it is otherwise if act was independent and disconnected from the post-office,and matters pertaining thereto.
5. BAME-DRUNKENNESS NO ExCUSE FOR CRIME.
Drunkenness is no excuse for crime, and in the instances in which iUs rasortec;l· to to blunt moral responsibilit,r, it heightens the cUlpability of the offender.
Indictment for Obstructing the Passage of the Mail. Mr. Warner, Dist. Atty., for the United States. Mr. Phelps, for defendant. KREKEL,D. J. t (charging jury.) The post-office department, under the law, has established a post-office in the town of Higginsville, in Lafayette county, 'in western division of the western district of Missouri, and John W. has been appointed, was, on the
twenty-eighth day of August last, postmaster of that office. The mdietment in this case charges that on said day, while Ellly, the postmaster, was in the discharge of his duties as such postmaster and in his office, the defendant Claypool knowingly and willfuHy obstructed and retarded the passage of the mails in his charge, thereby committing the offense for which he is upon trial. The terms "knowingly and willfully," employed in the law and in the indictment, have the common and usual meaning attached to them, and are intended to signify that defendant, Claypool, at the time of committing the offense charged against him, must have known what he was doing, and that with such knowlf!llge he proceeded to commit the violations of law with which he is charged. The act of congress under which the indictment has been drawn reads as follows: "Any person who shall knowingly and willfully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail. or any carriage, horse. driver, or carrier carrying the same, shall for every such an offense be punishable by a fine of not more than $100." The offense here denounced is the knowing and willful obstrncting of the passage olthe mail. r have already spoken of the meaning of the terms "knowingly and willfully," and add by way of further explanation that they are used in contradistinction to innocent, ignorant, or unintentional; so that defendant, Claypool, by the acts he did, may have obstructed and retarded the mail in its passage, yet he is not guilty under the law if he did it innocently and without intending to do so. There is a distinction between the act of obstructing done while in pursuit of a legitimate or innocent object, and being done while committing an uniawful act. This distinctIon has .been clearly pointed out by the supreme court of the United States in the case against one Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, and r present it to you in the language of Justice FIELD, who delivered the opinion of the court: " The statute of congress, by its terms, applies only to persons who' knowingly and willfully' obstruct or retard the passage of the mail or of its carrier; that is, to those who know that the acts performed will have that effect, and perform them with the intention that such shall be their operation. When the acts which create the obstruction are in themselves unlawful, the intention to obstruct will be imputed to their author, although the attainment of other ends may have been its primary object." As to this branch of the case, with so clear and pointed exposition of the law, you can have no difficulty in its application to the facts of the case you are to determine. r paE'S to the definition of the terms "passage of the mail" and their meaniug.i'he provision of the law as read, found the revision of
the laws of the United States of 1878, are taken from the law of 1825, where they are found in different connections from those in the Revised Statutes. Without stopping to point out how statutes in their construction are sometimes affected by their connection, I instruct you that by the terms "passage of the mails" are meant the transmission of mail matter from the time the same is deposited in a place designated by law olthe rules of the post-office department up to the time the same is delivered to those to whom it is addressed. I incline to this view because without such a construction the mail matter in post-oaices has but a limited protection by law, and because a larger and complete protection is certainly within the spirit of the law. The argument of legislative intent must yield to the necessity of the case, andis anticipated by provisions of law. St. 1878, (Rev. St. § 5600.) Applying this construction of the law, as here given, to the case in hand, you are directed that if you shall find from the evidence that the acts done and committed by the defendant, Claypool, obstructed or retarded the receiving or delivery of mail matter at the post-office at Higginsville, as charged in the indictment, JOU may find the defendant guilty so far as this branch of the case is concerned. Mail matter in the Higginsville post-office, (at the time of the alleged interference by Claypool,) ready for delivery, and there for that purpose, was on its passage within the meaning of the law, and to have interfered with it so as to obstruct and retard its delivery is an offense. It remams to be seen how far an interference with the postmaster is a knowing and willful interference with the passage of themail.so as to obstruct and retard it. Upon this branch of the case you are instructed that if you shall find from the evidence that Enly, the post. master, on the afternoon of the twenty-eighth day of August, went from the place in the room where the post-office is located to the door for the purpose of inviting or inducing the -personal encounter which then followed, he must bear the consequences; and it makes no difference whether he happened to be a postmaster. If the postmaster or his postmastership had no connection with the difficulty between him (Enly) and Claypool, defendant, but was independent and disconnected from the post-office and matters pertaining thereto, you are authorized, on such a conclusion being arrived at by you from the testimony, to find the defendant not guilty. But, on the other hand, if you shall find from the testimony that Claypool committed an unprovoked assault upon Enly, the postmaster, and the necessary resuU v.14,no.3-9
thereof was an obstruction and retarding of the passage of the mai,l,· the law presumes that by his act Claypool intended the result which followed; and you may, upon arriving at such a conclusion, find the defendant guilty. Under any view taken of the case, an obstruction or retarding of the. mail mugt have been the consequence of and followed from Claypool's acts. Drunkenness is no excuse for crime, and, in the instances in which it is resorted to, to blunt moral responsibility, it heightens the culpability of the offender.
(Df"mct Oourt, D. California. ·November, 1882.)
FUGlTIVES FROM JUSTICE-EXTRADITION TREATY CoNSTRUED.
An extradited fugitive cant;lot, under the treaty of 1842 between the United States and Great Britain, be held to answer for an)' other offense than that for which he has been surrendered.
HOFFMAN, D. J. The prisoner baving been arraigned on three indictments found against him in this court interposed a plea to the jurisdiotion of the court to the effect that he had been extradited by Great Britain at the of the United States; that the offenses charged in the requisition, and on which he has been surrellcLered, are other and different offenses ,from those alleged in the indictments to which he is now called on to plead; and that the said last-mentioned offenses are not mentioned or enumerated in the treaty between the United States and Great Britain; wherefore he says that he cannot and ought not to be put on his trial for such offenses, or restrained of his liberty, except to answer to thE) offenses for which he was extradited. To this plea the United States demurred. The validity of the claim set up on the part of the prisoner depends on the solution of two questions: First. What is toe true construction of the tenth at·ticle of the treaty of 1842 between the United States and Great Britain? Second. How far are the judicial tribunals of the United States and of the states required to take cognizance of, and in proper cases give effect to, treaty stipulations between our own and foreign governments? At the outset of the discussion two propositions may be laid down as incontrovertible: First. Whatever speculative views may have