Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/490

 TJNITED STATES V. DU HOTT. 483 �also, that when informed the mails were carried on the train he did not ofier to facilitate the passage of the cars by re- moving the obstructions he had laid down ; but after such had been put away by the employes of the relators he told the con- ductor to proceed at his peril. I think here is a knowledge and intent manifested to which the words of the statute apply. Had the defendant, on learning at the crossing the true state of facts, cleared or assisted in clearing the tracks, and told the conductor then to proceed, and not f orbidden him to go on, the case would have been different. As it is, the tes- timony shows that the acts of Mr. De Mott, whether before or after full knowledge of ail the facts, contributed to delay and obstruct the carrying of mail matter by the railroad eompany, which at that time clearly was lawful. Nor is the strength of this conclusion weakened by the defendant deelining to be examined on his own behalf. �It is unneeessary, in my.judgment, for the United States to prove an actual contract with the company in this prelim- inary proceeding, or for the latter to have their authority dis- played on their cars. It is sufiBcient that mail bags and pouches be brought to notice, or the fact be announced by the person in charge. This was done here, and it was notice enough to put any person on guard or inquiry. �It is not without hesitation that I bave decided to hold either of these defendants to answer. No doubt they feel aggrieved at the laches or wrong-doing of the company in withholding or retaining the compensation for right of way. Nor am I of the number of those who would extend federal jurisdiction ; rather the contrary. It is natural for the own- ers of land, situated as these have been, to manifest no very friendly feelings toward the relators ; still, the rights of others must not be disregarded. The defendants will be held undër ' recognizance in the same amoont as uow to answer. ����