United States v. Shelton

• Decision Date: 09 April 1900
• Citation: 100 F. 831
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. SHELTON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

100 F. 831

UNITED STATES v. SHELTON.

United States Circuit Court, D. South Carolina.

April 9, 1900

Abial Lathrop, U.S. Atty., and E. F. Cochran, Asst. U.S. Atty.

H.A.M Smith, for defendant.

SIMONTON Circuit Judge.

The defendant was indicted, under section 5478 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, for breaking into a building used in part as a post office, with intent to commit larceny therein. Upon this trial the witnesses for the government testified: That the building in which was the post office was used also as a store for the sale of merchandise. That the post office was on the same floor, and in the same room,-- not railed off. That it was on the side of this room occupying a small space therein. That, the morning of a day stated in the indictment, a window of the store was discovered to have been broken open, and the store was found to have been entered and robbed. Money was taken from the money drawer of the store, and a watch hanging up over this drawer was also taken. No money or other property was taken from any part of the place used as a post office, nor was there any evidence that that part had been entered or disturbed. Thereupon counsel for the defendant asked that the jury be instructed to find the defendant not guilty.

The language of section 5478 is this:

'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, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than five years.'

If we construe this section to mean that any entry, with felonious intent, into any part of a building used in part as a post office, is punishable in the federal court, then it would give the court jurisdiction of a common-law offense. This jurisdiction federal courts cannot exercise. But, if we construe the section to punish an entry into that part of the building used as a post office, with intent to commit larceny therein, the jurisdiction can be sustained. The section is ambiguous. Under these circumstances, it must be construed 'ut magis valeat quam pereat.' 'If,' says Mr Justice Story in U.S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 76, 9 L.Ed 1006 'the section admits of two interpretations,-- one which brings it within, and the other passes it beyond, the constitutional authority of congre...