United States v. Claypool
| Decision Date | 01 January 1882 |
| Citation | 14 F. 127 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CLAYPOOL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Mr Warner, Dist. Atty., for the United States.
Mr Phelps, for defendant.
KREKEL D.J., (charging jury.)
The post-office department, under the law, has established a post-office in the town of Higginsville, in Lafayette county in the western division of the western district of Missouri and John W. Enly has been appointed, and was, on the twenty-eighth day of August last, postmaster of that office. The indictment in this case charges that on said day, while Enly, the postmaster, was in the discharge of his duties as such postmaster and in his office, the defendant Claypool knowingly and willfully obstructed and retarded the passage of the mails in his charge, thereby committing the offense for which he is upon trial. The terms 'knowingly and willfully,' employed in the law and in the indictment, have the common and usual meaning attached to them, and are intended to signify that defendant, Claypool, at the time of committing the offense charged against him, must have known what he was doing, and that with such knowledge he proceeded to commit the violations of law with which he is charged. The act of congress under which the indictment has been drawn reads as follows:
'Any person who shall knowingly and willfully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, or any carriage, horse, driver, or carrier carrying the same, shall for every such an offense be punishable by a fine of not more than $100.'
The offense here denounced is the knowing and willful obstructing of the passage of the mail. I have already spoken of the meaning of the terms 'knowingly and willfully,' and add by way of further explanation that they are used in contradistinction to innocent, ignorant, or unintentional; so that defendant, Claypool, by the acts he did, may have obstructed and retarded the mail in its passage, yet he is not guilty under the law if he did it innocently and without intending to do so. There is a distinction between the act of obstructing done while in pursuit of a legitimate or innocent object, and being done while committing an unlawful act. This distinction has been clearly pointed out by the supreme court of the United States in the case against one Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, and I present it to you in the language of Justice FIELD, who :
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hall, 79-137-Cr-J-HES.
...the rules of the postal service up to the time the same is physically delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. United States v. Claypool, 14 F. 127 (W.D. Mo.1882). Accord, United States v. Johnson, 620 F.2d 413, 415 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Lavin, 567 F.2d 579 (3d Cir. 1977......
-
United States v. Del Monte, Crim. No. 78-00483-C.
...or by the rules of the post office department up to the time the same is delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. U. S. v. Claypool, 14 F. 127 (W.D.Mo.1882)." United States v. Takacs, supra. Accord, United States v. Lavin, supra at 581; United States v. Fleming, supra. The governmen......
-
United States v. Stickrath
...10371)), which makes it a penal offense to obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, and the interpretation given them in U.S. v. Claypool (D.C.) 14 F. 127, 128, applicable. As used in the statute and indictment, they are intended to signify that the defendant, at the time of making the t......
-
U.S. v. Lavin, 77-1488
...by the rules of the post office department up to the time the same is delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. United States v. Claypool, 14 F. 127 (W.D.Mo.1882). The Court accepts this early definition of the term "passage of the mail" as being within the intention of Congress in u......