UNITED STATES V. KOELKE. 4^8 �tion of the Louisiana State Lottery, to take place at New Or- leans, Tuesday, November 11, 1879, describing the list of prizes, the plan of the lottery, a list of capital prizes, and a statement of their authority for, and method of, doing busi- ness." �The defendant pleaded "not guilty," and after trial and verdict of "guilty" on both counts, he now moves in arrestof judgment, and for a new trial upon exceptions. �1. The first objection taken to the first count is that the writing set out in that count is improperly described as a "letter and circular." It is insisted that the statute, in pro- scribing a letter or circular, recognizes the distinction between the two things; that by a circular is intended a written or printed communication, general, and not personal, in its char- acter, and that by a letter is intended a communication per- sonal and individual in character, and not general; that if the paper set forth is a letter, then it is not and cannot be a circular, within the meaning of the statute, and if it is a cir- cular, then it cannot be a letter. We think, however, that the same paper may be both a letter and a circular. No doubt there may be many circulars that are not letters, but a circular which is in the form of a letter may be well described as a letter and a circular, and there is no reason for exclud- ing such a circular from the operation of the statute. There is nothing on the face of the paper set forth in the first count indicating that it was not a circular — that is, a paper intended to be issued to a great number of persons, or for general cir- eulation — yet it, undoubtedly, is a letter in form. This mode of describing it may perhaps have imposed on the govern- nient the necessity of proving that the paper was both a let- ter and a circular; although, where an instrument is set out in fuU, the description has been held to be surplusage. Eex T. Williams, 2 Den. Cr. C. 67 ; U. S. v. Trout, 4 Biss. 105 ; U. S. V. Burnett, (this court, unreported.) But whether these «ases apply to the present case or not, we think the count is not for this reason bad. �2. It is also objected to the first count that it omits to charge that the paper was one "concerning a lottery olicriiig ��� �
