Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-12-20
A RIFLED LETTER.
Trial Of Franklin Cook in the Criminal
Court.

Trial OK FRANKLIN Cook In the Criminal
Court.
In the Criminal Court this morning the case
Of Franklin Cook alias Otis r. Mann, charged
with having, while an empioye of the postal
service. violated section 5467, r. s. U s.. by
feloniously taking from the mail, October 6,
1886, letter addressed IN A. Dauphin, No.
6o7 It'll avenue, Washington, d. Co." containing
u, was called. Mr.. Lipscomb appeared for the
government, and Messrs. W. A. Cook and W. j.
Miller for the defendant.
MIR. Lipscomb opened the case, stating that
the defendant was employed as a clerk at the
city post-ohce, engaged in asserting let
ters; that complaints oflettsrs addressed to NJ A.
Dauphin, the agent Of the Louisiana lottery,
being missed were made; suspicion was directed
to the defendant, and ON the day in Question
he was seen to take letter and go to the water
closet where he distracted the dollar bill.
MIR. James E. Bell, superintendent of the
city delivery of the Washington Office, testi-
NED that the defendant passed q civil service
examination and was appointed as Franklin
Cook" and his duties we're to receive the mail
and distribute it. Witness examined the stamp
on the envelope and said it was received at the
once between6 and z o'clock p. m, October
8, 1855. and in the course Of business the de-
PENDANT may have received the letter and
stamped 1T. Witness was present the evening
OF the arrest by Mr.. Troy. Cook was taken to
the engineers room. Cook had the letter in
ms hand and Mr.. Troy was holding that hand.
Cook said Please let me 60 and I'll leave,
never to come back" He acknowledged taking
dollar note from the letter, and placing his
hand in his pocket took the note out He
stated that he had taken two letters, the night
before and may have taken another letter.
On cross-examination witness said there was
put one letter found on Cook; but ne stated
that he had found a check and money order
81 lzRz Il.
said, addressed to NJ. A. Dauphin. The de-
iendant had applied. under the civil service
law, Tor q position, passed the examination,
was certified to the postmaster and assigned TO
witness division; his efficiency having been
certihed, he was duly appointed. The paper
Henry Sherwood" The latter was assistant
postmaster Cook was assigned to particular
duties by witness, his authority therefor being
from the Postmaster General. Witness then
described Cooks duties again, saying the letter
was first delivered to the mailing division,
then placed with others in tubs, and taken to
the city delivery, where the bundles were cut
aud the letters stamped, when Cooks duties
ceased.
MR.. COOKS POINT.
Mr.. W. A. Cook here made the point that the
indictment was defective, as it was not set out
that the letter was deposited in the mails, or in
form which would entitle its transmission. or
that 1T was legal letter at all. He claimed
that there was no averment of starting ter
minal point, or that Il was to be delivered and
it could not be delivered. There was no such
place as 607 7th avenue. Washington d. c., nor
a u. A. Dauphin at such place. He read sew
eral authorities-l3th Blatchford, 1868. and 9TH
ers-to show that the letter must be in the
mails for transmission and delivery, and such
should be averred.
MIR. Lipscomb read in opposition second
IN onl =. a. -
sary for them to go further in the averments
than they had in this indictment. 1t was not
necessary to aver the destination.
The court read the averments in the indict-
ment and the section under which it is brou CHIT
5467, r. sand asked wherein the indict-
Mr.. Cook repeated that it was necessary to
aver that the letter was deposited in the post
Office.
THE COURT SAID
that the point was of 80 much importance that
be would not dispose Of it without reflection.
The indictment does aver that it came into
possession of Cook, but does not saw how. 1t
would have been better to set out in what man.
ner it came into his possession.
The stipulation that Vim. B. Ellison would
testify that he placed 81 in the letter and de-
read.
FURTHER TESTIMONY.
Inspector Smith testified that he was in the
water-closet; that Cook came in and tore a
letter open; that Mr.. Troy ran from the oppo-
site direction and seized him. Cook, in the
meantime, had crunched the letter in his right
hand. He corroborated Sir. Bell as to the
statements made by Cook.
The letter was presented to witness for iden-
LITIGATION, but the defense objected saying the
averment was "a certain letter addressed" &c.
Under this generality it is sought to show the
contents. The court overruled the objection.
Mr.. LipscOmb proposed to read the letter,
and
MIR. COOK AGAIN OBJECTED,
saying that the ownership Of the 81, alleged to
have been stolen, was not averred, and he
claimed that 1t was necessary. He read several
authorities that where larceny is an element Of
the offense the ownership should be set out. 1t
would have been different had the charge been
embeZzling a letter. but here ii is charged that
he took the letter and stole therefrom Il.
After recess Mr.. Lipscomb read number of
authorities and claimed that under them, the
offence not being felony, it was unnecessary
to be so particular in this case.
Mr.. Cook made the closing argument on the
points, reading some additional authorities.
The court said he would override the objec-
ton, at least for the present.
Cook admitted that he had been stealing about
a month.
Inspector Troy gave corroborative testimony
The Richmond Not Going to Hayti.
Secretary Whitney has at last settled the
question as to the disposition of the q. s. s.