Milby v. United States
Decision Date | 02 July 1901 |
Docket Number | 929. |
Citation | 109 F. 638 |
Parties | MILBY v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
The indictment in this case is based upon section 5480 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended by the act of March 2, 1889(25 Stat. 873), and embraces three counts.A demurrer having been sustained as to the third count, and overruled as to the first and second counts, the case was submitted to the jury upon the first and second counts, and the trial resulted in a verdict of acquittal on the second count, and conviction on the first count.A motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, and exception duly taken.The defendant was thereupon regularly sentenced to a term of one year and one day in the penitentiary, and the case comes here on writ of error to revise the judgment.The ruling of the court in denying the motion in arrest of judgment is assigned for error, and the sufficiency of the indictment is the sole question presented here for consideration.Section 5480 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, so far as it materially affects the question now to be disposed of, reads as follows 'If any person having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud * * * to be effected by either opening or intending to open correspondence or communication with any person, whether resident within or outside of the United States, by means of the post-office establishment of the United States, or by inciting such other person or any person to open communication with the person so devising or intending, shall, in and for executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, place or cause to be placed any letter * * * in any post office * * * of the United States * * * or shall take or receive any such therefrom such person so misusing the post-office establishment shall upon conviction, be punishable,' etc.
The first count of the indictment, being the only one with which we are now concerned, may be here given, and is as follows:
'Against the peace and dignity of the United States, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.'
W. M. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Before LURTON and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.
CLARKDistrict Judge, after making the foregoing statement, .
The contention on behalf of plaintiff in error is that the first count in the indictment does not state the facts and particulars of a scheme to defraud, such as would constitute an offense under the statute.It is obvious that, unless a very general description of the offense in the language of the statute is permissible, this objection is well taken, provided the letter itself, which is set out in the indictment, does not disclose the necessary facts and particulars of a scheme to defraud, against which the statute is directed.In Stokes v. U.S.157 U.S. 187, 15 Sup.Ct. 617, 39 L.Ed. 667, the count had under consideration an indictment for a conspiracy to commit the offense described in section 5480, and in reference to the facts necessary to be charged in such indictment Mr. Justice Brown, speaking for the court, said:
'We agree with the defendant that three matters of fact must be charged in the indictment and established by the evidence: (1) That the persons charged must have devised a scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) that they must have...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Harrison v. United States
... ... great number of decided cases-- among others, by the Supreme ... Court in Durland v. U.S., 161 U.S. 306, 16 Sup.Ct ... 508, 40 L.Ed. 709, and U.S. v. Stever, 222 U.S. 167, ... 32 Sup.Ct. 51, 56 L.Ed. 145, and by this court in the Cases ... of Milby, 109 F. 638, 48 C.C.A. 574, Horman, 116 F. 350, 53 ... C.C.A. 570, O'Hara, 129 F. 551, 64 C.C.A. 81, ... Bartholomew, 177 F. 902, 101 C.C.A. 182, and Foster, 178 F ... 165, 101 C.C.A. 485. It is by the decisions settled, not as ... an all-inclusive definition, but as one sufficient for the ... ...
-
United States v. Goldman
...This construction has been followed in the cases of United States v. Stever, 222 U.S. 167, 32 Sup.Ct. 51, 56 L.Ed. 145; Milby v. U.S., 109 F. 638, 48 C.C.A. 574; O'Hara v. United States, 129 F. 551, 64 81; Bartholomew v. United States, 177 F. 902, 101 C.C.A. 182; Foster v. United States, 17......
-
Erbaugh v. United States
... ... by inciting such other persons to open communication with ... them,' and this proposition has been sustained without ... dissent by the opinions and the practice of the courts ... United States v. Long (D.C.) 68 F. 348, 349; ... Milby v. United States, 109 F. 638, 640, 641, 48 ... C.C.A. 574; United States v. Post (D.C.) 113 F. 852, ... 853; Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350, 351, 53 ... C.C.A. 570; Stewart v. United States, 119 F. 89, 93, ... 55 C.C.A. 641; Ewing v. United States, 136 F. 53, ... 54, 69 C.C.A. 61, 62; ... ...
-
Tucker v. United States
... ... of merchandise for which he agreed to pay the shippers, but ... for which in fact he did not intend to pay, was within ... section 5480. This decision was cited by this court with ... approval in an opinion by Judge Clark, concurred in by ... Judges Lurton and Severens. Milby v. United States, ... 109 F. 638, 642, 48 C.C.A. 574. In Charles v. United ... States, 213 F. 707, 711, 712, 130 C.C.A. 221, Ann. Cas ... 1914D, 1251, it was held by the Circuit Court of Appeals for ... the Fourth Circuit, speaking through Judge Pritchard, that ... the mailing with an order ... ...