Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/672

 UNITED STATES ». PATTY. 665 �witliin the mcaning of section 3894 of the Bevised Statutes, a large number, to-wit, 500, printed circulars conceming said lottery, on each of said days, duly addressed and postpaid, direeted to divers peisons within and beyond the limita of this district ; which circulars each and ali -were eent and conveyed by and through the mail. �The second count charges that on the twentieth day of January, 1880, the defendants deposited in the post-offico at Fond du Lac 100 printed circulars concerning said lot- tery, addressed to persons unknown to the grand jnrors, and that they were deposited to be sent and were sent by mail. The third count is similar to the second, except that it charges the deposit in the post-office at Fond du Lac, on the first day of December, 1879, for the purpose of convey- ance through the mail, of 500 circulars concerning said lot- tery. A motion is made to quash this indictment for duplic- ity, it being claimed that the first count charges 45,000 distinct, independent offences; the second count 100; and the third count, 500. Upon the argument stress was laid by counsel for the defendants upon the language of this section, ■which is that "no letter or circular concerning illegal lotteries • * * shall be carried in the mail. * * ♦ Any person who shall knowingly deposit or send anything to be conveyed by mail in violation of this section shall be punishable," etc. And it was insisted that the deposit in the post-office of a single circular to be carried in the mail constituted an offence. This position was controverted by the attorney for the United States, who urged that, under a proper construction of this statute, an indictment could hardly be maintained that charged the deposit or sending by mail of a single letter or circular relating to a lottery, and that in that view it waa deemed necessary to set out in the indictment the scheme in which the defendants were engaged, and by means of which they were seeking to dispose of certain property, and that each count of the indictment oaght to be regarded as stating a single act, and therefore a single offence. �It is true that the second and third counts do not specif- îcally allege that on the tenth day of January, 1880, 100 of ����