Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/58

 46 FEDERAL EKPOBTBR. �moves for a new trial. One ground of the motion is that error was committed: at' th'e trial in admitting secondary evi- dence of the contents of a letter sent to the accused, without proof of sufficient notice to produce the original. The case showB that the place of business of the accused was in Nassau street, near the place of trial. It was proved that notice to produce the original letter was served upon the defendant's attorney on the afternoon of the day before the trial, at 20 minutes before 5 o'clock. The original not being produced, secondary evidence of its contents was admitted. In this there was no error. "In town cases service of notice on the attorney on the evening before the trial is in general sufS- cient." 2 Kuss. on Crimes, 743. �Another ground of the motion is that secondary evidence was permitted to be given of the address upon the envelope of the letter sent to the defendant, when the notice to produce did not specify the envelope. But the notice to produce de- SCribed the letter as enclosed in an envelope, and, we think, sufficiently indicated an intention to call for both the envel- ope and its enclosure. We also think that a notice to pro- duce a letter covers the envelope of the letter. �It is further contended that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the jury, in finding that the defendant deposited the lottery circular, because the eircular in question was sent in reply to a letter addressed to John Duflf & Co., and there was no direct evidence that the defendant mailed it. �But it was proved that the,, defendant was accustomed to use the name of John Duff & ,C!o., and sold lottery tickets under that name. It was alao proved that the defendant personally received the lettei: which contained the order for the circul9.r ,in quesiion,,and also money to pay for two lot- tery tickets. From these iacta it was competent for the jury to infer that the defendant, who received the order for the cirCular and the pay for the "tickets, was the person who re- mitted the circular and tickets, especially when it appeared that the circular and tickets were ^^daressed to a fictitious name, known, so far as appeara, only to the defendant and the sender of the order. f ; ' . ��� �