Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/418

 dtOÏ f^bËBAii bbfôbtMb. �dictment, to convict than proof of mailing. But, in connec- tion with what was s6 oharged in regard to receiving the answers to the advertisement, what was subsequently chargea and net excepted to by the defendant must be taken into view, — namely, that if Mrs. Sibley testified truly the defendant had in bis possession answers to the advertisement, — and that the fact of bis receiving the answers (not taking them or receiv- ing them from the post-office, but having them, from what- ever source he received them) was an important fact, as tend- ing to show who mailed the letter and the advertisement to the Malone Palladium. �This shows that what was previously said in the charge, as to receiving the answers to the advertisement, was, in view of the whole charge, said, and must bave been understood by the defendant and by the jury as said, in the Bame sense ; as what was af terwards said in regard to receiving the answers was clearly said — namely, as bearing solely on the question on trial — as to who mailed the letter and the advertisement to the newspaper. This is the true view, and under it the refusai to charge request 3 was no error. The same re- marks apply to and dispose of the refusai to charge request e. The exception to the charge as to personally mailing or personally receiving letters from the post-office does not appear to be insisted on, and is not tenable. �The court at first charged that the fact that the letter which enelosed the advertisement to the newspaper was in the handwriting of the defendant, of itself, unexplained, was Bufficient to authorize the conclusion that it was mailed by him. On an exception being made by the defendant to such charge, the court modified it by saying "that it was evidence from which the jury might infer that such letters were mailed by the defendant." The meaning of this is that the charge as first given was, on the exception, modified eo as to be as secondly stated, and as modified superseded and displaced the charge as first given, and that the first exception disap- peared, and the only exception is to the charge as it stands when so modified. Such modified charge must be taken in connection with the whole charge. ����