New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-18
FINE POINT of POSTAL LAW.
INGENIOUS THEORY By WHICH \ THIEviNG LET
TER.cARnrR HOPES TO ESCAPE.

| INGENIOUS THEORY bN WHICH THlE|lN' LII
TER-cARniER HOPES TO ESCAPE.
wnshlngton May IA case has been brought 10
the supreme Cour, OF the United States from the
District Court for Massachusetts, which presents
Interesting question for decision John Gooic. a
lci,or-carrier employed at tho Roxbury station.
Boston posi0flicr was convicted OF stealing letter
from the mails ntrus'el TO his care and sentenced
- ,hrcc years imprisonment From this he APP
poals principally the ground that the Court re-
fuscI give tho jury the following charge. which
presents tho facts IN the case:
II the jury shall nni that Roynion. an in.
sp.ct.r employed In the mail service or tho InltcI
closed sAll letter together with two silver ccrtif-
Gates FOR dollar each ana I'VE iwo-c.nt losths,
sail envelope or covering 10 John MuldoOn. esd
iJ Zicger-st.. Eoxbury Mass. and affixed TO Ia.
eanccilci b~ore sa.a otter 60, into any postofce
ami also stamped said envelope with p9s'marh OF
date ana that John Mulioon Was person not IN
existence. and that 'S Hcsicr-st "as n p'hoo mVt
IN existence. and after having pr'ph'i IN" eau
letter delivered II TO another Inspector OF me De
parment ami men n1i aDG csrred ' II mo
m, Roxbury station OF the Boston postoihce ana
depos.ed !, N the wes taken BY tho dcfcnan
men sniI letter was no; deposited IN any posioihse
or % n mater when came into the possession
OF the Postorice Department or any agent tnet.oi
hv any lctter-carrier. and was not such a letter
a. wax intended to BE- conveyed By mail within me
"n,u Litter or package that described and in
,"ni.d hv Section s.fay OF the said statutes.
The exact point here presented has never been
,,,es.I upon by the Supreme Court, but the members
., the Court I'm cases almost parallel hay" expressed
,i,tops There were several cases cited by coun-
sci for the defendant In which the courts had held
TINT persons engaged In unlawful business. contra
hand Of the malls could not be convicted for send
ting letters I'm answer to letters written by detectives
and spccal agents soliciting them 10 commit an act
which would render them liable TO punishment
Oprlons 10 that effect have been gwen by Judges
Dillon Treat and Bellinger. Of United States
o,r,s and by a Judge OF the Michigan Supreme
Court.
A, this term OF the Supreme Court OF the ihited
c,.,es the case Of William Grimm was decided. lie
had been convicted In 81. Louis OF using the mails
far unlawful traffic upon evidence furnished IN a
letter written by himself to n postolce Inspector
who used "A fictitious name and address. 1t was
commended that he could not be convicted under
,hot state OF factshc letter being deposited nj the
Instance of the Government and through the SO
icItaton ~ IT, officers. Upon this Justice lire"cr
said ''rhcrc has been fluch discussion OF the re
atons OF detectives TO crime and counsel for de-
The contention. But II Is unnecessary 10
,nmltplv authorities The law actually VIC
1ci by the defendant. he placed letters In the post
rricc which conveyed Information As 10 where Oh
srru. matter could be obtained and the fact that
Tho person addressed. who wrote under assumed
names and received his letters. was "A Government
detective In no manner detracts from his CUNT