UNITED STATES V. SIMS.
received the letter from Rank or otherwise, and that he bought the draft from him for $10. There was evidence tending to corroborate Rank's statement. It is declared, by the section under which the indictment is drawn, to be an offence for any person employed in any department of the postal service to steal or take any article of value enumerated in thE' statute from any letter intended to be conveyed by mail, which comes into his possession "either in the regular course of his official duties, or in any other manner whatever," provided the same has not been delivered to the party. to whom it is directed. If the defendant received the letter, as testified to by Rank, knowing that it was intended to be conveyed by mail, and that it had not been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, and the defendant opened it and stole the contents, he is guilty. It is not material how a letter which is intended to be conveyed by mail comes into the possession of a person employed in the postal service. A local mail agent, such as the defendant was, who receives a single letter to be delivered to a mail agent to be conveyed to its destination through the mails, is entrusted with mail matter, within the meaning of the statute j and he is just as guilty, if he opens and steals the contents of such a letter, as ifbe had stolen the contents of It letter taken unlawfully from a mail-bag or packet with which he was entrusted. Motion for new trial overruled.
(Di8trict OQUTt, N. D. Oldo, E. D.
December 3, l88l.)
ful to employ any person, or for any person to serve, as a master, chief mate. engineer, or pilot on any steamer, who is not by the Inspectors, need not charge that the employment was with knowledge that the employe had not been hcensed as the statute required.
Charles L. Fis?t, for defendant. Edward S. Meyer, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff.
WELKER, D. J. 'fhe indictment charges the defendant with violation of section 4438, title 3, of the" Act for the regulation of steamvessels," in employing an engineer on the tug of the defendant who was not licensed as required by the statutes. Plea not guilty, and a verdict i of guilty by the jury. The defendant files a motion in
arrest of judgment, because the indictment does not charge a violation of the statute. The defect relied upon in the motion is that the indictment does not aver that the defendant knew, at the time he employed the engineer to serve on the tug, that the engineer was not licensed by the proper inspectors, as required by the statute. The section provides that"The board of local inspectors shall license and classify the masters, chief mates, engineers, and pilots of all steam-vessels. It shall be nnhtwful to employ any person, or for any person to serve, as a master, chief mate, engjneer, or pilot on any steamer, who is not licensed by the inspectors, and any one violating this section shall be liable to a penalty of $100 for each offence."
The indictment does not aver knowledge of defendant that the engineer was not licensed. The only question made by the motion is whether it is necessary to mnke this averment in the indictment. In construing this section it is important to bear in mind the object and purpose of this statute for the regulation of steam-vessels, and the important duties of the engineer in their navigation. These regulations are for the protection of the lives of those· engaged in navigation, as well as the traveling public, and the property that may be carried upon these vessels; they provide for the safety of this branch of the water-carrier business. Section 4441 provides that the inspector shall examine the applicant for license as an engineer as to his knowledge of steam machinery, his experience as an engineer, and the proofs he produces, and if satisfied that his character, habits of life, knowledge and experience in the duties of an engineer are such as make him a suitable and safe person to be entrusted with the powers and duties of the station, he shall grant him a license, and such license is revocable for negligence, unskilfulness, or intemperance. These regulations also require the engineer, when employed on a vessel, to place his certificate of license in some conspicuous place in such vessel, where it can be seen by passengers at all times. attached to These references to the statute show the qualifications and skill of this class of officers. It will be observed that section 4438 does not state that it shall be unlawful to knowingly employ such unlicensed engineer. Some of the preceding sections do state that certain. acts shall be intentionally done to incur the penalty. If such knowledge was intended as an element of the offence it would have been so written, and not left for inference. As far as possible it is the duty of the court to carry out the purpose and intent
SHARP. V. REISSNER.
of congress in the establishment of these regulations. If it be required that owners of vessels must be shown to know that the man he em· ploys as an engineer is not licensed, the public loses the protection intended to be afforded by these regulations, as the owner can employ anyone and say he did not know he was not licensed, and need not inquire. The purpose of this section is to require him to know that such license has been obtained, and he employs him as an engineer ·at his peril if he be not in fact so licensed. Therefore, it is not necessary to aver in the indictment, or prove on the trial, such knowledge on the part of the employer to make him liable to the penalty of the statute. The motion is overruled.
October 5, 1881.)
(Oircuit (}ourt, 8. D. NIJ1J) York.
In a suit for the infringement of a patent, a plea which sets up the single tlefence of non-infringement will be stricken out on motion.
Briesen c1; Betts, for plaintiff. W.H. L. Lee, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, C. J. The bill in, .this case brought for the a patent.1h.e bill· alleges that the defendants, without the license of the and in violation of his rights, and in infringement of the patent, did "make, construct, use, and vend to others to be used, the said invention, and. did make, construct, use, and vend to others to be used, hydrocarbon stoves made according to, and employing and containing, said .invention," and "have made and sold, and caused to be made and sold, large quanti. ties of said hydrocarbon stoves." Two of the defendants have put in a plea to the bill, which sets forth "that neither they, nor either of them, have, since the issuing of the letters patent set forth in said bill, ever made, constructed, used, or vended to others to be used, the invention described in said letters patent, · · · or made, constructed, used, or vended to others to be used, hydrocarbon stoves made according to, and employing and containing, said invention." The plea also denies that the defendants, "or either of them, have ever infringed upon or violated any exclusive right secured by said letters patent in any manner' whatever:" There is nothing else in