United States v. Martin
| Decision Date | 24 August 1905 |
| Docket Number | 6,781. |
| Citation | 140 F. 256 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MARTIN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Nenian L. Steele and Wm. H. Standifer, Asst. U.S. Attys.
Erle Pettus, for defendants.
The first count of the indictment charges that:
'Thomas Martin and Columbus Martin a certain building there situate and then used in part as a post office of the United States, feloniously did break into and enter, with intent the moneys, postage stamps, money order blanks, goods, and chattels of the United States in the said building then being, and the moneys, goods, and chattels of one J. R. N Power in said building then being then and there feloniously to steal, take, and carry away contrary to the form of the statute,' etc.
The second count was in substance the same, except that it contained allegations as to the value of the personal property described.
The defendants demur to the indictment, because it fails to aver that the defendants broke into that part of the alleged building used as a post office, and also because it fails to aver that the defendants feloniously broke into and entered a building used in whole or in part as a post office of the United States with the intent to commit larceny or other depredation in that part of the building so used as a post office.
The defendants are charged under section 5478 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3696), which provides for the punishment of--
'Any person who shall forcibly break into, or attempt to break into, any post office, or any building used in whole or in part as a post office, with intent to commit therein larceny or other depredation.'
It will be observed that the indictment does not follow the statute by alleging that the breaking was with the intent to commit 'therein' the designated offense. It is charged that the intention was to steal property 'in the said building then being'-- not in that part of the building used as a post office. The power to pass this statute is conferred on Congress by section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution 'to establish post offices and post roads,' and 'to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution' such power. The United States courts have no jurisdiction of common-law offenses, and it is clear that the Constitution confers no authority on Congress to enact a general statute against burglary. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mason
...which would have referred to the building in general. Sorenson v. United States, 168 F. 785 (8th Cir. 1909); United States v. Martin, 140 F. 256 (C.C.N.D.Ala.1905); United States v. Clifton, 91 F.Supp. 940 (E.D.Ark.1950); United States v. Saunders, 77 F. 170 (D.C.Ind.1896); cf. United State......
-
McNealy v. Johnston, 22959-R.
...8 Cir., 168 F. 785; United States v. Campbell, 1883, C.C., 16 F. 233; United States v. Shelton, 1900, C.C., 100 F. 831; United States v. Martin, 1905, C.C., 140 F. 256. Therefore the first count does not allege a federal offense and the court had no power to sentence petitioner under that c......
-
United States v. Clifton, Crim. A. No. 1569.
...v. U. S., supra; Schwyhart v. U. S., supra; U. S. v. Campbell, C.C.Or., 16 F. 233; U. S. v. Williams, D.C.S.C., 57 F. 201; U. S. v. Martin, C.C.Ala., 140 F. 256. All of these cases, except Schwyhart, were decided prior to 1909 while R.S. § 5478 was in force. The use of the adverb "therein" ......