United States v. Williams
| Decision Date | 07 July 1893 |
| Citation | 57 F. 201 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
George Von Kolnitz, for the motion.
E. F Cochran, Asst. U.S. Atty.
The defendant was indicted under section 5478, Rev. St., in these words:
'At a stated term of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of South Carolina, begun and holden at Charleston, within and for the district aforesaid, on the first Monday of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, the jurors of the United States of America within and for the district aforesaid, that is to say, upon their oaths respectfully do present that Prioleau Williams unlawfully and forcibly did break into a building used in part as the post office at Parlers, in the said county of Orangeburg and in said state, with intent to commit therein larceny and did then and there steal, take, and carry away moneys belonging to the post-office department of the United States, of the value of two dollars and sixty-nine cents, contrary to the act of congress in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'
At the call of the case he interposed an objection to the indictment in the nature of a demurrer. His position is this: The indictment charges that the defendant forcibly broke into a building used in part as a post office, with intent to commit larceny therein; that, in order to give this court jurisdiction of this offense, the forcible breaking into must be in that part of the building used as a post office, and not in that part of the building not in such use; that by the terms of this indictment this does not appear, and that the word 'therein' may mean any part of the building, only a part whereof is in use as a post office; that this makes the indictment fatally defective.
The indictment is in the words of the section, and, if the language in the section makes out the offense, the indictment must stand. This section is under a subdivision,--'Postal Crimes.' The offense defined is 'forcibly breaking into or attempting to break into any post office or building used in part as a post office, with intent to commit therein larceny,' etc. Clearly, the word 'therein,' qualifying both members of the sentence, means 'in the post office.' The last part of the indictment fixes its meaning positively, so that the defendant is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. United States
...because the indictment did not state that the larceny was intended for that part of the building used as a post office. In U.S. v. Williams (D.C.) 57 F. 201, an under this section was sustained. The word 'therein' in the indictment, used also in the section, was held to refer to the post of......
-
Munson v. McClaughry
...198 F. 72 MUNSON v. McCLAUGHRY, Warden. No. 3,776.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.July 15, 1912 ... Syllabus ... by the Court ... Peters (C.C.) 12 F. 461; United States v. Williams ... (D.C.) 57 F. 201; United States v. Yennie ... (D.C.) 74 F. 221; Sorenson v. United States, ... ...
-
Anderson v. Moyer
...under one indictment in separate counts, as was done in this case. As tending to support the conclusion here reached, see United States v. Williams (D.C.) 57 F. 201; United States v. Yennie et al. (D.C.) 74 F. Sorenson v. United States, 168 F. 785 (94 C.C.A. 181); State v. Barker, 64 Mo. 28......
-
Sons v. United States, Civ. No. 69-26.
...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 Byron, C.C.N.Y.1883, 18 F. 722; United States v. Campbell, C.C.Or.1883, 16 F. By reason of the foregoing, the Motion un......