United States v. Mulvaney 4 Park. Crim. Rep. 164

United States. Circuit Court. Southern District of New York.

Before Judge Hall.

January, 1859.

The United States v. John Mulvaney.

An indictment charging: the opening of a letter, which had heen in the custody of a mail carrier, before it hadheen delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with a design to obstruct the correspondence of another, Ac., is not sustained by proof that the defendant opened a letter which had been left with him at :his- 'residence by the mail carrier, and which was 'directed to another person to the care of the defendant, at the number of-the house occupied by the defendant, it appearing that the defendant not only used no artifice to obtain possession of the letter, but that he in fact objected to receiving it.

Held, also,, that there being no evidence of. the corpus delicti, except the confessions of the defendant,-the defendant ought to be acquitted on that ground.

.Form of. an indictment in the United States Court for opening a letter, which had been in tbe.custody of a mail carrier, before it was delivered to the person to whom it was directed. ...

The defendant was brought to. trial upon an indictment which was in the' words "and figures following:

“ Southern District of New Doric, in the Second Circuit. .

“Ata stated term of the Circuit Court of the United. States .of America, for the- southern district of New York in the second circuit, begun and. held at the city of New York, within and for the district-and circuit aforesaid, on thé last Monday of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight . hundred and fifty-nine, and continued by adjournment to and including the third day of March in the same year.

“ Southern District, of New Doric, ss:

“ The jurors of the United States of America, within and for the district and circuit aforesaid, on their oath present: That John Mülvaney, late of the city and county of New York, in the district and circuit aforesaid, laborer, heretofore, to wit: on the seventeenth day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, at the city of New York, in the southern district aforesaid, and within *165the jurisdiction of this court, did open a letter which had been in custody of a mail carrier, before it had been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with a design to obstruct the correspondence, to pry into another’s business and secrets, against the peace of the United States and their dignity, and against the form of the statute of the said United States, in such case made and provided.

Second Count.

“ And the jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present: That John Mulvaney, late of the city-and county of Mew York, in the district and circuit aforesaid, laborer, heretofore, to wit: on the seventeenth day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, at Mew York, in the district and circuit aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, did destroy a certain letter, which had been in custody of a mail carrier, before it had been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with a design to obstruct the correspondence, to pry into another’s business and secrets, against the peace of the United States and their dignity, and against the form of the statute of the said United States, in such case maria and provided.

“THEODORE SEDGWICK, U. S. District Attorney.”

The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The government proved, that on or about the seventeenth day of January, 1859, a city mail carrier left with defendant, at his place of business (82 Catharine street), a letter directed to “ John Stewart, care of John Mulvaney, 82 Catharine street, Mew York citythat defendant at first objected to receiving it, but took it, and said he would see that it was delivered to the person to whom it was directed. Stewart testified that the letter was never delivered to him. Several witnesses testified that defendant, upon being asked whether he had received the letter, at first denied it, but afterwards admitted that he had received the letter, opened and read it, and then burnt it.

*166 Henry L. Glintcn, for the defendant,

contended that, inasmuch as the letter was delivered by the mail carrier, at the place to which it was directed, defendant having resorted to no fraud or artifice to get possession of it, the letter had passed out of the jurisdiction of the United States. Mr. C. also contended that there must be proof of the corpus delicti aside from the confessions of defendant; and as there was no testimony showing either the opening or destruction of the letter, except defendant’s admissions, on this ground the jury should acquit. On this point, counsel cited People v. Hennessey (15 Wend., 147.)

After hearing Mr. Dwight, Assistant U. S. District Attorney, the court sustained both points taken by the defendant’s counsel, and directed an acquittal.