United States v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 01 February 1882
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. SNYDER and another.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

14 F. 554

UNITED STATES v. SNYDER and another.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

February, 1882

C. A Congdon, Asst. U.S. Atty., for the Government.

O'Brien & Wilson, for defendant.

McCRARY C.J.

1. The first and most important question presented by this record is whether defendant, Bertram, not being a postmaster, can be indicted and punished under the above-mentioned act of congress. That act, by its terms, applies only to postmasters, and the question is whether any other person can be found guilty of a misdemeanor under it. The record in this case shows that the defendant Bertram was guilty of aiding abetting, and assisting Snyder in the commission of the crime. He in fact prepared with his own hand the false reports, and, knowing them to be false advised and induced Snyder to sign them. Upon careful consideration, we have reached the conclusion that this was an offense against the statute, notwithstanding the fact that only postmasters are named therein. The offense is a statutory misdemeanor; and it is well settled that all who aid, abet, procure, or advise the commission of a misdemeanor are guilty as principals. 1 Russ.Crimes, (9th Ed.) 60, note 1. And this is the rule whether the misdemeanor is created by statute or by the common law. U.S. v. Mills, 7 Pet. 138.

When congress creates a statutory misdemeanor we must assume that it is done with the above well-settled rules of law in view and if so, with the intent that aiders and abettors, as well as the actual doers of the crime, may be punished under it. The rule that all procurers and abettors of statutory offenses are punishable under the statutes, although not expressly referred to in the statute, is supported by authority. Bish. St. Crimes, 36; Com. v. Garnet, 1 Allyn. 7; U.S. v. Harbison, 1 Int.Rev.Rec. 118; U.S. v. Bayer, 4 Dill. 407.

Although the defendant, Bertram, not being postmaster was incapable of being the principal actor in the commission of the crime, he may nevertheless be held to be an aider, procurer, and abettor, and therefore, in law, a principal. It has been adjudged repeatedly that the fact that a defendant was incompetent to commit the offense as the fact that a defendant was incompetent to commit the offense as principal by reason of not being of a particular age, sex, condition, or class, he may, nevertheless, be punished as procurer or abettor. State v. Sprague, 4 R.I. 257; Boggus v. State, 34 Ga. 275; Rex v. Potts, Russ. & R. Cr. Cas. 352; Bish. Crim. Law, 627-629; U.S. v. Bayer, supra. This doctrine is also supported by reason, for if it were not sound there could be no punishment of the crime of procuring a postmaster to defraud the United States by making false returns, even although the procurer might share in the proceeds of the fraud, and be actuated by the worst of motives.

2. The offense charged was the making of false returns for the quarter ending December 31, 1880. The prosecutor was allowed against the objection of defendant, to introduce in evidence, not only the false returns for that quarter, but other similar returns for other periods before and after the time...