United States v. Saunders
| Decision Date | 21 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | 5,661. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SAUNDERS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Indiana |
Frank B. Burke, for the United States.
Frederick W. Cady, for defendant.
The grand jury have returned into court an indictment as follows:
The grand jurors of the United States within and for the district of Indiana, impaneled, sworn, and charged in said court at the term aforesaid, upon their oath present that Calvin Saunders, late of said district, at the district aforesaid, on the twentieth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six unlawfully, knowingly, forcibly, and feloniously did then and there break into a certain building, then and there used in part as a post office of the United States, at Ovid, in said district, with intent then and there unlawfully and feloniously to steal, take, and carry away the personal goods and chattels of the United States then and there and therein situate, and with intent to commit other depredations therein, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.
The defendant has interposed a motion to quash, on the ground that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense cognizable by the courts of the United States. It is insisted that the indictment does not show that the defendant broke into that part of the building used as a post office, and that the constitution does not empower congress to make it a criminal offense to break into those parts of such a building as are used for other purposes than that of a post office, even though the breaking in may be with the intent to steal the property of the United States. In support of his contention, the case of U.S. v Campbell, 16 F. 233, is cited and relied on. In this case the defendant was charged with forcibly breaking into a building at Oregon City, which building was then and there Used in part as a post office of the United States, with the intent then and there, in said building to commit the crime of larceny. ' The court sustained a demurrer to the indictment, on the ground that, for aught that appeared, the defendant may have intended to commit larceny in a part of the building not used as a post office, and, if so, that the offense was not within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. United States
... ... (C.C.) 16 F. 233, that it should be interpreted as if it ... read 'with intent to commit larceny in the part of said ... building used as a post-office. ' See United States ... v. Williams (D.C.) 57 F. 201; United States v ... Yennie (D.C.) 74 F. 221; United States v. Saunders ... (D.C.) 77 F. 170; United States v. Shelton ... (C.C.) 100 F. 831. In the Shelton Case, Judge Simonton, ... in discussing the instance of a breaking into a building, a ... single room, used for the sale of merchandise and in part as ... a post office, where only goods of the merchantman ... ...
-
United States v. Mason
...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 States v. Wright, 365 F.2d 135 (7th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 918, 87 S.Ct. 879, 17 L.Ed.2d 789; McNealy ......
-
Sons v. United States, Civ. No. 69-26.
...building used for such purpose a criminal offense, when such breaking is done with intent to commit larceny therein." United States v. Saunders, D.C.Ind.1896, 77 F. 170. See also, United States v. Shelton, C.C.S.C.1900, 100 F. 831; United States v. Williams, D.C.S.C.1893, 57 F. 201; In re B......
-
United States v. Martin
...by Judge Simonton in United States v. Shelton (C.C.) 100 F. 831. See, also, United States v. Williams (D.C.) 57 F. 201; United States v. Saunders (D.C.) 77 F. 170. demurrer is sustained. ...