UNITJID.STATEl'l ,?1. HII:.lll1RY.
7Q5,'
chants, fromlbther merchants, . with, a formed; intent 'Qf not. pll-ying fqr them, you will find the defendants or such two or more of them as w:ere concerned: in such scheme r guilty. If you find. that there was no prtlcedent fraudulent intent, ·01' that there was no conspiracy,you will find the defendants not guilty.
UNITED STATES tI. HILBlmV. (Diltrict VO'lVl't, B. D. South VO/f'olina.
January 11, 1887)
The words, "In care of F. Kresse}," on a letter directed to A., indicate that it is to be delivered through Kressel; they mean tJiat A., and not Kressel, is the person to whom the letter is to go. 2. SAME-REV. ST. U. S. ... ." One who, with the purpose of obstructing a correspondence, or of prying into the. secrets of the person to whom a letter is directed, takes the letter from the .pattyln whose care it is' sent through the mails, and opens it, is' guilty ofthe offense defined ·in Rev. 8t. U. S. §8892, and liable to t11e penalty therein denounced. .
lridictfuent under Rev. St. U. S. § 3892, for intercepting and opening letters. Asst. DilJt. :4tty. Furma'/'l"for the lJnited States. W. M. ThOrna8, for defendant. SIMONTON, J., (charging jury.) . "rhe evidence the part of the ernment, not denied by defendant, shows that one Henry Merrick is keeper of the)ife-saving statiooJpn Morris island, Charleston harbor, defendant being one of his crew; .that ,all letters, official and personal, for M\:lrrick, cOJ!Il.e to the Charleston post-office, directed to the care of F. 'Yho keeps a sllQP in that Aty. When any ofMerrick's crew qqme: to the city they can at Kre$!lel's for Merrick's letters. The two letters in question were left by a letter carrier at Kressel's, directed to "Keeper Life-saving Station, Morris Island," care of F. Kressel. 'The defendant called for them, and at once opened and read them. It is qharged that he had no to do this. Defendant denies this charge. The attorney for defendant has requested the judge to charge the jury that, as the letters were directed to the care of Kressel, and were dellv. er.ed to Kressel, the defendant cannot be convicted under this section, as the letters had passed out of the custody of post-office department. Your inquiry is, to whom were these letters directed? Did the defend· ant open them before they w,ere delivered to the person to whom they were directed? If, therefore, you find that these letters had been in the post-office, or in the custody of a letter carrier, and had been left at v.29F.no.14-45 u
10&'
FEDERAL REPORTER.
Kressel'sl"tobe delivered of th9life-saving station, no one had aright to break the envel{)pe but the person to whom, not to whose care, ther:Were directed, ot' some one acting under his authority to do The W'(')tdfl'onthe letters/tIn 'Ctl,:re of F. Kressel," indicate that they were to be delivered through Kressel. They do not mean that he is the person to whom the letters were directed. The keeper of the life-saving station was the person to whom the letters were directed; and if the defendant opened them delivered to him, and so opened them without authority, you can find him guilty under this section, (U. S. v. Rep. 225,) if ris purpose was to obstruct the correspondence, or pry out the bushless or secrets of the keeper.
so.
,
r:
"
(District '"Oourt.-,." D. ,South. ,Oarolina. January' 14,1887.) E. .' ,,','r:; ' , , .. , . ",' ,,- ' , , ' ; ,, ,ll ' , _.
POST-O!TIOB"-ElIIJUCZZLING REGIIlTlC1UIlD LETTERS-REv.
The P.'!rposeofRev. St.'[f.. B.. § 5467, is to. prevent and punish any interfer· ence wlth the contents of a letter in the custody of the mail; and a pOstmaster who takes money out of a registered letter, and borrows it, with the hope and expectati?:n pf ret\1rning)t, and dOllS return it. is the terms of the "", statute'.J." . ' ' , " :'
ST. U, S. § 5467.
Indictment under Rev.St.U. S. § 5467, for secreting and embezzling. a registered letter. L. F. You-mans, Dist. Atty., for the, Government. T. H. CJlark and' E; H. AlJey,'fol' defendant. , 'f ,,"'"
;1
SmoNTON,:{., (chargingjury.) One Qf'the of the indictment charges tbedeferidant with violating the provisions ofsection 5467 of the Revised S,tatlltes; ;by secreting and a rllwsrered letterintrusted t6him which letterc9n.tidneEl $12 in United States and that he' did Btealor take the"eohtents thereof. The defendant has been,exanrined before you, that the letter was delivered to him to be registered;' containing this sum of money, and that he gave a. receipt for it; that he did not it for want of a post-office receipt for a registered package; that he put it in his pocket, and forgot it; that some afterwards, when called upon by the person who handed him the letter,heproduced it without its contents, but at once paid the value thereof to her'.: He denies that he,stole, or to steal, this money. There is a'conflict in' the the question whethel' the letter was sealed or not'wheri handlJd't6 him for registmtion. . . The counsel'for the defendant has requested the court to charge the jury that· they' ciiI1n'ot convict the defendant unless they conclude from 'lSee JoneS':.
S., 21
447.