Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/793

 UNITED STATES V. BATJGH, 783 �The information charged "that John G. Baugh, late of the city of Eichmond, heretofore, to-wit, on the twenty-third day of November, A. D. 1879, at the said city of Eichmond, within the said eastern district of Virginia, he, the said Baugh, then and there being a person employed in the postal service of the United States, to-wit, as a letter carrier at the post-office at the said city of Eichmond, unlawfully did em- bezzle, secrete and destroy a certain letter addressed to Messrs. Cowardin & Ellyson, at Eichmond aforesaid, and which said letter was then and there in the said post-office, and was intended to be conveyed by mail, and then and there had not been delivered to the said persons to whom it was addressed, and which said letter then and there came into the possession of him, the said Baugh, and which said letter then and there contained certain articles of value, to-wit, two legal tender treasury notes of the United States, each of the denomination of one dollar, and each of the value of one dollar, and the said treasury notes the said Baugh did then and there takb from the said letter, and did then and there take and steal the same, against the form of the statute in 8uch case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States." �L. L. LevÀs, District Attomey, for the United States. �A. M. KeUey, for accused. �Hughes, J. This is an information for the embezzlement of a letter. The offence is statutory, and the information must charge such an offence as the statute defines. It is not the taking and secreting of any letter that constitutes the statutory crime. Under the terms of this law, that only is embezzlement where the letter is in postal custody; is not yet delivered to the person to whom it is addressed ; contains some one of the valuable things named in the statute; and this valuable thing is taken out of the letter or stolen. Thie^ same section of the Eevised Statutes also makes the act of taking this valuable thing out of the letter, or stealing it, an offence. In the case of the U. S. v. Taglor, 1 Hughes, 514, I held that there might be a prosecution for taking or �v,l,iio.lO— 60 ��� �