Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1874-07-27
The Mail Robbery Case.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-Judge
Il. W. Hughes presiding. -Iu the case of +. +.
Taylor charged with robbng the mail, the jury
came into Court Saturday evening at p. m,
and brought in verdict Of guilty, and most of
the jury accompanied the verdict with paper
recommending the prisoner to the clemency Of
the Court.
The counsel of the prisoner, through Judge
Alfred Morton, moved for an arrest OF judy
ment, on the following grounds:
''Section 279 Of the act of Congress, Ito re-
wise consolidate aud amend the statutes relat-
ing to the Postothce Department" approved
June Slh, 1872, is so Worded as to seem TO
make one offence of the several acts, which 1t
describes, and, In its latter clause, to employ
different phraseology from that which was used
in section u OF the statute OF March Sd, 1879,
of which it is a rcvisal. The section as 1t now
stands declares that any person employed 10 the
postal service who shall secrete, embeZzle, or
destroy any letter coming into his possession,
which was intended to be conveyed by the mall,
containing any agreement tor the payment OF
money; any such person who shall steal or take
such contents out ofauv letter coming into his
possession In the regular course OF his othc'al
duties, provided the letter shall not have been
delivered to the person to whom addressed
every such person shall, on convlctlon thereof
for eyery such offence, be imprisoned at hard
labor not less than one nor more than hVe years.
Upon this section thus worded and punctuated,
the question arises whether the embezzlemeut
oil the letter is itself complete otfeuce under
the section, suhjecting the embtZzler to the
pcualty denounced; or, whether the embezzle-
meut of the letter and the stealing OF its con-
teuts are not two acts, both OF which are ueces.
sary to constitute the offence created BY this
section of the statute.
In the original law the phrase in the latter
clause Of the section, ''or il any such person,
is used; whereas i'll the new law this distinctive
form OF expression is abandoned, aud the cx-
plauaory form, ''auy such person is SUBSTITUTE
ed. If the distinctive form Of the old law had
been preserved 10 the new, then Different per
son might be punished for stealing the conteuts
FROM the one who had embezzled the letter
itself; and two distinct otfeuccS would have been
created by the section.
But the present language Of the section is
such as to seem, in the phrases ANY person
who shall secrete, embczzle, or Destroy aud
''any such person who shall, and every SUCH
person shall, to refer, throughout, to the same
person. and to require that this same person,
in order to conviction, shall have embezzed the
letter and stolen its contents also.
"It such be the proper construction OF this
section-if it really Intends that the otfcrce
provided for shalt consist OF the embczzilng OF
the letter and the stealing Of lis contents; then,
of course, the Indictment, III order TO be good,
must, III each count, charge the embrzzlDg, aud
also charge the stealing
"In the case of Taylor the Indictment does
not contain charge of the stealing of the con-
tents of the letter. 1t charges only the emb T.
element of the letter. Nor is there second
count charging the stealing.
IF the two acts be necessary to constitute the
offence created by section 279, then there ca
be 20 sentence prououuced upon a verdict OF
guilty found on al Indictment charging only
the emhCzZlemeut.
The question is new one, arising upon
recently enacted statute 1t is difficult one;
and until it is settled the law officers Of the
government will not know how to frame indct-
ments upon 1t.
The Judge said that as there had been 20
decision upon the section in its new form, and
it was important that it should be decided de-
liberatey and correctly 10 order that district
attorneys should know with certainty upon
what construction OF the section to draw their
indictments 10 future cases, he would entertain
the motion 10 arrest OF judgment until the ad
journcd term OF the curt, to be held at Rich
mond 90 the S'h Of September next, aud would
put the defendant under bail to appear there
on that day to answer the judgment of the
court, which was accordingly done.