State v. Bagwell

• Citation: 12 S.E. 254
• Parties: STATE v. BAGWELL et al.
• Decision Date: 24 November 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

12 S.E. 254

STATE v. BAGWELL et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 24, 1890

This is an indictment charging the defendants with reading publishing, and making known the contents of a letter without authority, in violation of chapter 41, § 2, of the Acts of 1889, tried before BYNUM, J., at the August term, 1890, of the superior court of Iredell county. The indictment charges that the defendants, on or about the 10th day of July, 1890 did "unlawfully, willfully, and without proper authority, take into their possession a certain letter written by Emma L. Rankin to S. C. Rankin, on or about June 20, 1890, which said letter was duly received by the said S C. Rankin through the United States mail at the post-office in Mooresville, N. C., on or about the 24th day of June 1890," and that the said defendants "did, on or about the 12th day of July, 1890, unlawfully, willfully, and without authority, read, publish, and make known the contents," etc., "of the said letter, against the form of the statute," etc. Before the jury was impaneled, the defendants moved "to quash the bill of indictment upon the plea that the bill fails to charge an offense, under the statute, and particularly for that it fails to describe the letter in question to have been 'a sealed letter,' and fails to charge the alleged reading and publishing to have been done with knowledge that said letter had been opened without proper authority." After hearing the argument of counsel, his honor quashed the indictment, and the state appealed.

The Attorney General and R. H. Battle, for the State.

W. M. Robbins, for appellees.

DAVIS J., (after stating the facts as above.)

The following is the act under which the defendants are indicted "Any person who willfully and without authority opens and reads, or causes to be opened or read, a sealed letter or telegram, or publishes the whole or any portion of such letter or telegram, knowing it to have been opened or read without authority, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," etc. Acts 1889, c. 41, § 2. This indictment is for an offense created by statute, and it not only fails to follow the language of the statute descriptive of the offense, but, by the most liberal construction, it cannot be made to charge that the defendants opened or read a "sealed letter or telegram," or that they "published the whole or any portion of such letter or telegram, knowing it to have been opened and read...