Case ID: f_94/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ADAMS, District Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. HUILSMAN.
    (District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.
    May 8, 1899.)
    OFFENSES AGAINST POSTAL LAWS — OPENING OF LETTER — WHAT CONSTITUTES Delivery.
    ■ After a letter lias been delivered by the postal authorities to the person in whose care it is addressed, it is no longer in the custody of the United States, nor subject to its jurisdiction; and the opening and destruction of such letter, or the abstraction of its contents, after it has been so delivered, though readdressed to be forwarded, but before it has been again deposited in the mail, is not an offense, under Rev. St. § 3892.
    This was an indictment under section 3892, Eev. St. U. S. Plea, not guilty. ¡
    A jury having been impaneled and sworn, counsel for defendant stated that they would agree with the United States attorney that the facts in the case were as follows: A letter directed to Miss H., “care Superintendent City Hospital, St. Louis, Mo.,” was in due course of mail received by the superintendent, at his office in the City Hospital. This superintendent was authorized to receive the mail of patients for ultimate delivery to them. Miss H. liad been discharged from the hospital when the letter reached there, and had left her new address with the superintendent. The latter erased the address from the envelope, wrote on it the new address of Miss H., and delivered the letter, so readdressed, to the defendant, who was a messenger boy in the hospital service, with directions to him to put it in the street letter box. Defendant took the letter, opened it, took out some money and stamps which were in it, and destroyed the letter and envelope; of course, not depositing either in the letter box.
    Counsel for defendant, on this state of facts, agreed to by the district attorney, submitted that there was no offense cognizable under United States law or under the constitution; citing U. S. v. Safford, G6 Fed. 942, and U. S. v. Lee, 90 Fed. 250, and' eases therein referred to.
    The United States attorney read opinion from the assistant attorney general for the post-office department, relying mainly on case of U. S. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343, in support of the indictment and the prosecution.
    E. A. Rozier, U. S. Atty.
    G-eo. D. Reynolds and Jos. P. Vastine, for defendant.
   ADAMS, District Judge

(orally). This is not a new question with me. I had occasion lately, while holding court in the Western district, to examine the law very carefully. I then held that section 3892, Rev. St., did not, when properly construed, contemplate such a case as this, and, if it did, it was doubtful if the power of congress, under the constitution, would permit such legislation. Congress has full power, under the constitution, to regulate the carrying of the mail, and to protect all mail matter as long as it is in the custody of the postal authorities. When the postal authorities have fully discharged their duties, by delivery of the letter to the person to whom or in whose care it was addressed, they have fully discharged their functions, and in my opinion have gone as far as congress has authorized them to go. Whatever offense the defendant has committed, if any, in this case, is one which may be cognizable under state law, but is not under the United States law. The jury will return a verdict of “Not guilty.” That being done, the defendant will be discharged.

Verdict accordingly. Defendant discharged.