FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 40.
of any particular fO'rm,' that its counterfeiting be'mlide tl.' crime by statute. In this caseUappears that in China small masses of silver, not regular in shape, but conforming generally always unifurmin to the dellign which the witness drew for us, are brought to an officer to of the be weighed and' assayed. That officer is not directly an government, but it seems, to acquiesce in,his dischafging his functions. He is selected' by acon8en8Us of the leading members of financial and commercial houses, and it isbis duty, afterexamiriing each mass, to inscribe on it a statement oiits weight and fineness, predicated on the tael as a standard. Thus upon 'ea.oh separate mass (called "sycee ") it is stated that it contains five taels' and two-tenths, or three taels and one-seventh, or whatever may be the fact. These shoe-shaped pieces of silver, thus marked,circulate as theotl'ly money of account. They seem to be properly within the provisions of section 3564 of the Revised Statutes referred "to, being of: a substance, intrinsically valuable, and as readily comparable with our standard as Qre the various gold and silver' tdkens of other coun· tries. Such seems to have been the view taken at the mint, for the director has made the 'compl1rison and determination as't6 the ChinE'se tael, There is no force in the contention of the de· 'both in 1885 and :'fendl1nf that a retrospective effect will be given' to 'the proclamation of 'the secretary of the if the plaintiffs' views are sustained. It ap'pears inproof by the tlroclamation of October 16, 1886, that the di'reetorOfthe mint made the determination of value which he wae re:quired to do. When,as mattet oflaet; he made such determination is not stated, in theproclamationj and does not appear in' proof. The ute directed hinito make such determination in January 6f 1886, and, in of thecontrliry, it will be presumed that he perforJIled his entire duty, and made the determinationat the time when the' statute directed him to. ' A verdict is directed for the plaintiffs for the fnllamount claimed. . '
'uNl'i'En Sum (DIBtlict
tI. HOI,MES. December 26, 1889.)
coun, E; D. Missouri, E. D.
L P08T-QJ'l'IOB-DBTAINlN<J', LBTTEB-INDIOTM'BN'l'· . ',." lAp {nal.ctlnentagainst a postInB.ster, nnder. Rev. ,St. U. ,B, 5 8SIlO, for detaining , "mail, is sufficient if it allege In the words of the statute that the letter in question was unlawfully detained, with intent to prevent its arrival. It need not aver that , the letter was knowingly and willfully detained. .. /iil.AM/il. , ..' , ," u " '" ,, " , ' , JlJ.'he, indictment aUegin,g the letter was detained two days. "with intent to prevent the arriv$l, aDd <leavery of thl:l ;same" to thl:l, person addresBed. the offense was, complete. ait40ua h .at,the, expiration" ()f that period there JDa7 have betlD a ",'!" ,",,', '
On Demurrer to Indictment. Tkos. P. Baiha:w, for defendant.
PNITED STA1'ES
f,l.
HOt-MESo
751
,!eo',D. Reynolds, U. S. Dist. Atty.
T#AYER, J. 1. Theindictment in this case is in the language of the statute, (section 3890, Rev. St. U. S.,) and charges the aefendant, was at the time postmaster at St. Charles, Mo., with unlawfully detaining, for the period of two days, in his post-office, a certain letter addressed to the first assistant postmaster general, Washington, D. C., the posting of which was not prohibited by law, with intent to prevent the arrival and delivery of the same to the person to whom it was addressed. Relying on the deci!!ion in U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, the defendant's counsel has demurred to the indictment because it is not averred that the letter was knowingly and willfully detained. The two calles,qowever"are 110t parallel. In the Carll (hse, which was an indictment, un, der seetion5431 , for uttering forged securities of the United States,with intent to defraud, the court held that no offense was committed, the accused knew that the security, was forged when he uttered it; althotighthe statute in question did not in terms require such knowledge to be shown"to warrant a conviction. It also held that it did not necessarily follow that the accused knew that the instrument was forged or counterfeit, although it was uttered, as alleged, with intent to defraud; ,'tbatthe accused might havesuppbsed it tob6 a genuine though he uttered it in execution of a fraudulent purpose of SOllile sqft. Hence it was ruled that an indictment in the very language ute was bad, it being essential that.it should tJ.ppear that the accused knew the security to be forged or counterfeit. The reasoning does not , seemapp:licable to the case now under consideration. ,It qlay bacon, Qededthat the defendant in the case at barq.idnot commit 'an if the detention of the letter was accidental; pnt it is not possible to cOPceive how, the detention could have unintentional or unknown to the defenqant, if, as the iridicUnent avers, it ,Was detained by hi¢ intent to prevent the,arrival at;ld delivery of sanie. The case ,is op.e , in which ,the fact that the wrongful act in question was done knowingly ; and intentionally is necessarily implied froni intent with which the , a:ctis sa,id to have' been done. For thatreasdIt 'the court holds that'it 'was sufficient to allege, in tbe wotdsof the stiltute under which the inthat the letter in questionwa,s unlawfully detained, , dictment,is with preven,titsarrival l etc. " , " " ' 2. It is further insisted that it is manifest from the whole indictment that theacouseddid not intend to altogether, prevent the arrival and deand hence that the inlivery of the letter, but merely to delay dictment shoul,dhave been drawn, undersection 3891, for detaining or qelaying matter. Wit,hout stopping to under ,section 3890'!Hlintent to perpetually netain must"be shown, or whether , ;anintent to, qetain temporarily will suffice, ,the answer to objection is that for two days is alleged, inthe very la,pg'\ll!<ge of the statute, to have been "with' inteptto prevent thearrivalanq.'qellvery of ,Jhe same" to the person addressed. If detained, even ,:"",ith intep.t to ,altpgether l?revent delivery, ,the offense was al·
who
j
.
"..
·
"-.
. "
;
'.
',1
752
though at the expiration of that period there may have been a change of purpose. The demurrer, in my opinionl is not well taken, and is . therefore overruled.
UNl'TED STATES'll. DORSEY.
(District Oourt, S. D. Mississippi, M. D. November Term, 1889.) L POST-OFFIOE-ROBBERY FROM MAILS-DEOOY LETTERS.
end. S.
The use of test or decoy letters by inspectors of mails, for the purpose of ascertaining the deprepators upon the mails, is proper and justifiable, as a means to that
SAME.
The abstracting, from a letter in a registered mail package, of a silver certificate, b'y a railway postal clerk, after he has received it 88 such, and while in his posse&sIOn, to be conveyed by him as other registered mail, though placed there to give him opportunity to taka it. if haso chooses, is a violation of seotion5467. (SyUabus by the Oourt..)
Motion for a peremptory instruction to the jury to return a "erdict of not guilty. A. M. Lee, U. S. Atty. Calhoun & Green, for defendant. HILL, J. The question subtIliHed to the court for decision arose upon the defendant's motion to instrnct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The indictm·ent makes the following averment: "That the defendant, George P.Dqrsey, on the 15th day of. May, 1889, in this district, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the said George P. Dorsey being then and there employed in the postal service of the United States, in the capacity of a postal clerk, a certain registered package numbered 39, post-marked Shellmound, Miss., and directed to Messrs. Eyricb & 00., New York, aod purporting to be signed by Mary Winford, in which said letter was inclosed a certain United i:ltates silver certificate, of series 1880, lettered B,and numbered 7,537.482, and of the denomination of ten dollars, and which said package had not been delivered to the party to whom it was addressed, unlawflJlly and feloniously, he, the said Dorsey, the said cel'tilicate out of the said package and letter then and there did steal, contrary , to the form of the statute· in such caae made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States."
To which indictment the defendant has pleaded not guilty. It is admitted by the district attorney, on the part of the United States, that the package, letter,and certificate were prepared by Pettigrew, then acting as'an inspector of the mails of the United States, and whose business was then to detect depredations on the mails of the United States, for thepl1r'pose of detecting these depredations on the railway route .between' Greenwood, in Leflore county, and Jackson, Miss., and not for the purpose of being conveyed by the mail to the persons addressed on
