United States v. Jones

• Decision Date: 23 January 1882
• Citation: 10 F. 469
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. JONES. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

10 F. 469

UNITED STATES v. JONES. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

January 23, 1882

BENEDICT D.J.

The accused was tried upon an information framed under section 5480 of the Revised Statutes. Having been convicted he now moves for a new trial. One ground of the application is that the evidence failed to make out an offence such as is described in section 5480. The evidence was, and the jury under the charge must have found, that the accused devised a scheme to put counterfeit money in circulation by sending through the mail to one Bates a letter calculated to induce Bates to purchase counterfeit money at a low price, for the purpose of putting it off as good. The evidence further showed, and the jury found, that the accused, in order to carry his said scheme into effect, did place in the post-office at New York city a letter such as described in the information, for the purpose of inducing Bates to purchase counterfeit money at a low price, in order that he might put it off as good money for its face value. This evidence was sufficient to make out an offence such as is created by the statute under which this information was framed, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence to show an intention on the part of the accused to defraud Bates or any other particular person.

The scheme to defraud described in the information may be a scheme to defraud any person upon whom the bad money might be passed, and it is within the scope of the statute, although no particular person had been selected as the subject of its operation. Any scheme, the necessary result of which would be the defrauding of somebody, is a scheme to defraud within the meaning of section 5480, and a scheme to put counterfeit money in circulation is such a scheme.

We are therefore, of the opinion that the offence charged was proved by the evidence.

Another point taken is that there was no evidence of the corpus delicti except the defendant's admission. But the gist of the offence consists in the abuse of the mail. The corpus delicti was the mailing of the letter in execution of the unlawful scheme. There was direct evidence of the mailing of the letter by some one, and the letter itself showed its unlawful character. This much being shown, it was certainly competent to prove that the defendant was the sender of the letter by his admission to that effect.

Another point made is that error was committed at the trial by...