Evening star., 1899-04-10
Opinion by Justice Bradley on Use of
Decoy Letters.
OWNERSHIP OF MONEY ENCLOSURES
Daniel Scott, Alleged Criminal, Dis
charged From Custody.
AN IMPORTANT RULING

justice bradley, IN Criminal Court NO.
., today made a ruling of considerable i'm
| portance particularly to the inspectors of
| the Post Office Department, as it materially
affects their methods of detecting crime.
| In the ruling referred to Justice Bradley
practically holds that money sent in the
mails to department of the United States
| government for the purpose Of detecting a
| thief cannot be used, under the statute of
| March B. 1875 as the basis for an indict-
ment; that the ownership of the money
| stolen must be an actual ownership, and
not a qualified ownership such as is afford
ed by the sending of money merely for
| the purposes of decoy.
The ruling was on a motion to direct the
jury to acquit, in the case Of Daniel U.
Scott. colored, formerly employed in the
patent office. He was indicted for viola
ton of the act of March g. 1915, and was
placed on trial Friday last. The motion
was argued Friday and Saturday, the court
announcing the decision today. Attorney c.
Maurice Smith appeared for the defendant
Assistant District Attorney Gould repre-
senting the government.
History of the Case.
The indictment contained two counts
each one of which charged the defendant
with the larceny of So of the moneys, goods
chattels and property of the United States.
1t was conceded by the prosecution that
the indictment was based upon the act of
Congress approved March 3, 1915 The mo-
tloh OF the defense that the court
dlrect a verdict in favor of the defendant
because the testimony failed to show that
'he money, the subject of the alleged lar
ceny. was the property of the United
states Other grounds We're urged in sup-
port OF the motion, but in the view taken
oL e me one mentioned the court held that
the others need not be considered
It was testified that the defendant at the
time or the offense charged was an employa
OF the United States in the United States
latent office and assigned to special duty
III III connection con with the receipt and handling
OF the mail delivered at the patent office
1t was his duty to receive from the messen-
ger or the Department of the Interior the
man Dag Tor the patent office: to carry it to
the mail room. open it with a key with
which he was furnished and to slit the
envelopes so that their contents could be
handled. Having done this he handled the
registered mail and at times assisted with
other mail.
1t was the duty Of the clerks In the room
to take any money received to the financial
clerk of the Office. having first made a rec
ord of such receipts and prcnerly iacketed
the inclosing letter and other papers. The
envelopes inclosing the two s. bills described
IN the lndlctment We're received in the office
mail. The money. i was alleged, was ap-
prOpriated by the defendant and the en-
velopes, with such other papers as came
In them, were disposed Of it was claimed,
for the purpose Of concealIng the crime.
investigation by inspectors.
The attention of the inspectors of the Post
Office Department prior to this time had
been called to the fact that money inclosed
in envelopes addressed to the patent office
had not been received, and they had been
engaged in making an investigation of the
matter. The assistant commissioner of pat
ents had been informed that these inspectors
would use decoy or test letters inclosing
money for the purpose of detection. Each
of the bills described was inclosed in let
ter ordering years subscription to the
Patent Office Gazette, prepared or caused
to be written by the inspectors and signed
with fictitious name. one purporting to be
sent from Rockville and the other from Bal
timore Md, but both put in the mail in this
city. Each bill was marked for identifica-
ton. One of them was the money or prop
erty of Inspector Owens, and the other was
the money or property of Inspector Max
we'll
Neither of these inspectors intended his
money to become the money or property of
the United States, or to subscribe for the
Gazette in the fictitious name used, or to
have that publication sent to the hctiuouS
address given. The purpose was to follow
that money If it went to thief and thus
accomplish his detection, and If 1t reached
the financial clerk to intercept the order
and to claim and recover the specific money.
Other moneys similarly inclOsed in the de-
coy letters received the same day but not
stolen were so intercepted by the same in
Spectors, claimed and returned to the re-
spective owners.
What Constitutes Ownership.
Under these circumstances, conceding
that the inclosing envelopes were delivered
to and their contents came into the pos
session of the United States, because duly
received by an authorized agent of the pat
ent office in it's building" says Justice Brad
ley in his ruling, did such receipt and pos
session constitute the United States the
general owner of the inclosed notes?
Clearly not. Such receipt and possess
sion were not intended by the owners and
senders to confer the right Of property, ana
the assistant commissioner of patents SO
understood the transaction.
IF proof of general ownership is essen
tial to successful prosecution under this in
dictment the case has not been made out.
Is that essential?
In indictments for larceny at common
law the pleader may safely allege property
in either the general or special owner the
bailor or bailee. If the owner is unknown
to the grand jury the indictment may SO al
portance to the thief. The crime and the
penalties are the same whether the stolen
things belong to A. or to B. 1t is necessary
that the name of the owner be alleged, If
known, for the purpose of identifying the
crime, so that the defendant by proper
pleading may protect himself against any
subsequent prosecution for the same Of
fenSe.
Indictment for Simple Larceny
IF this were an indictment at common
law for simple larceny, and If it were the
fact that these bills were in the possession
of the United States for temporary pur-
pose under an understanding that they were
| to be returned to the owners when the
| object of their transmission was accom-
plished the Indictment might allege owner
| ship in the United States. 1t is however
| at least doubtful whether such circum-
stances would make the United States the
| special owner, even for the purpose Of sup
| porting allegation of ownership in such
| indictments. But this is an Indictment un-
| der the statute named. which imposed in
/ terms the penalty of Imprisonment at hard
| labor in the peni tentary, not exceeding five
years. or a fine not exceeding S., 900, or
both, in the discretion of the court upon
any person who shall embezzle, steal or
purloin any money, property, record, vouch-
er or valuable. thing whatever of the mon
eys. goods, chattels, records or property
of the United States. The offense of steal
| ing the notes of the amounts alleged in
this Indictment If they were not the prop
| erty of the United States, would be petty
1