United States v. Hardyman

ON a certificate of division in opinion from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia.

James E. Hardyman was indicted in the Circuit Court of the eastern district of Virginia, for buying, receiving, and concealing treasury notes of the United States, knowing them to have been stolen. The treasury notes were alleged to have been stolen from the mail of the United States by Winston, a negro man, or by persons unknown. Winston was at the same time indicted for robbing the mail of the United States, of ten treasury notes. The indictment contained four counts, charging the defendant with receiving treasury notes, bearing interest at one per centum, and at five per centum per annum.

The defendant moved the Court to quash the indictment, upon the ground that the papers described in the said indictment are not promissory notes under the act of Congress approved on the 3d day of March, 1825, under which the prisoner is indicted; and the act of Congress, approved the 12th day of October, 1837, by virtue of which the said notes were issued, describes them as treasury notes, and does not provide, nor does any other act of Congress provide any penalty for stealing these notes from the mail of the United States, or receiving them, knowing them to be stolen; and upon this motion the Court being divided in opinion, the said indictment was not quashed.

The Attorney for the United States, further proceeding in the case, offered as evidence to the jury, a treasury note for fifty dollars, payable in one year, bearing interest at the rate of one M. per centum.

The counsel for the accused moved the Court to exclude it from the jury as evidence, upon the ground that it does not answer the description of any one of the notes set forth in the indictment, as it bears interest after the rate neither of five per centum nor of one per centum, but bears an interest after the rate of one mill per centum, as signified by the letter 'M' after the word 'one' upon the face of the said note: and to sustain this motion, the defendant proved, by the collector of the port of Richmond, that he received notes such as that above described, as notes bearing interest after the rate of one mill per centum, and not one per centum, and the government so received them from him; and the letter M aforesaid was understood to signify and be intended to mean mill: and also proved that the Secretary of the Treasury had issued, as far as the said collector, and another witness who derived his impression from the Treasurer of the United States, and the officers of the government, knew and believed, no treasury note bearing interest after the rate of one per centum. Upon this motion the Court was also divided in opinion, not being satisfied that the note did appear by its face to bear interest after the rate of one mill, and not being satisfied that it was competent to the defendant by parol evidence to explain any word or letter upon the face of the said note, so as to show what its meaning was, either by resort to any definition of it, or to the exposition of it by the practice of the treasury department, and the officers of the government and the public; and, therefore, that it was not competent to the defendant so to explain the letter M aforesaid, which appears on the face of the said note, and of which no notice is taken in the indictment, for the purposes of showing that by that letter the makers of the said note intended to fix the rate of interest at one mill per centum. And thereupon, upon the motion of the accused, and with the consent of the Attorney for the United States, the Court adjourned to the Supreme Court of the United States for its decision, the following questions, viz.:--

1. Are the treasury notes issued by authority of the act of Congress passed on the 12th day of October, in the year 1838, promissory notes within the meaning of the act of Congress, approved on the 3d day of March, 1825, under which the prisoner is indicted; and is there a sufficient averment in the indictment in this cause of the stealing and receiving of such treasury notes?

2. Is the letter 'M,' which appears upon the face of the note offered as evidence, a material part of the description of the note?

3. Would it be proper to receive parol evidence for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the said letter M, and proving the practice and usage of the treasury department and officers of the government and others, lawful receivers of similar treasury notes, in order to show thereby the meaning intended to be attached, and actually attached to the said letter M by the treasury department and others; and that by such meaning the said treasury note bears one mill per centum interest; and not one per centum interest?

The case was submitted to the Court by Mr. Grundy, Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Justice M'LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court:--