United States v. Rapp
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Indictment under section 5467, for destroying letter, embezzlement, etc. The defendant was employed in the post-office at Atlanta, Georgia, as distributing clerk, and had so been employed for years, lie also had charge of what was known as “nixes;” the term “nixes” being interpreted as meaning matter received in the post-office which could not be forwarded through the mail because incorrectly, insufficiently, or illegibly addressed, or addressed to points where there was no…
Read the full summary
Indictment under section 5467, for destroying letter, embezzlement, etc. The defendant was employed in the post-office at Atlanta, Georgia, as distributing clerk, and had so been employed for years, lie also had charge of what was known as “nixes;” the term “nixes” being interpreted as meaning matter received in the post-office which could not be forwarded through the mail because incorrectly, insufficiently, or illegibly addressed, or addressed to points where there was no post-office. The evidence showed that it was the duty of the employe in charge of the “nixes” to sort them, the letters…
1Opinion of the CourtNeuman, J.
Under the views I entertain of the case, the intention of the defendant in destroying the letter or taking the money is immaterial. The question is whether or not a prosecution can be maintained under sections 5467 and 5469 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, on the facts as shown by the government. The indictment in this case was drawn under section 5467, but, in the course of his argument, the district attorney claims that the prosecution may be maintained under either of the sections named, the indictment being sufficient under both sections. Section 5467 applies, in express…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. WhittierU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1878
- United States v. FoyeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1853
- United States v. CottinghamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1852
- United States v. MarselisU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1849
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. MeysenburgMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- United States v. Beverly R. KentCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- United States v. Harry HergenraderCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
- United Fruit Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
- United States v. Harry HergenraderCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.