394 FEDBU4.L, EBPOHïEH �Brand V. Unitëd States. �(Circuit Court, N. D. New lork. November 6, 1880.) �1. Sending Letters Theouqh Mail — Intent to Defaud — Kev. St. �i 5480.— Section 5480 of the Revised S ta tûtes provides that "if any person haying devised, or intendlng to devise, any sehetne or artifice to defraud or be effected by eittier opening, or iatending to open, correspondence or communication with any other person, whether resident within or outside of the United States, by means of the post-office establishment of the United States, or by Inciting such other person to open communication vvith the per- son so desiring or intendtng, shall, in and for eieeuting such scheme or artifice, or attempting so to do, place any letter or paclcet in any post-office of the United States, or taise or receive any therefrom, such person so misusing the post-office establlsli- ment shall Be punishable by a fine of not more than $500, and Dy imprisoumeiit for not more than 18 months or by both such puu- ishments." Held, that the word "or," in the expression "or be effected," is a clerical mistake for the word "to," and that the expression shouldibe, "to be effected." �2. CiBCUiT Court — ^Wkit or Eeeoh — ^Act of Mabgh 3, 1879, (20 U. S. �St. AT I^ARGB, 354.) — ïhe oiily questions that can be reviewed in the circuit court upon a writ of error, under the act of March 3, 18T9, (20 U. S. St. at Large, 354,) relatlng to "criminal cases trled before the district court," are those which appear by the record to have beeu decided and duly excepted to in the court below. �3. RequesT— -Indictment — Stifficienct. — A request to iiistruct the �jury that there vpas no evidence in the case upon which there could be a legal conviction under the indictmeut, does not raisu any question as to the sufflciency of such indlctment. �4. Same— Evidence — Stjefioiency. — The circuit court cannot, on vrrlt �of error, pass upon the sufflciency of the evidence in the court be- low, where the bill of exceptions does not clearly set forth ail such evidence. �5. SaNDifra Lettbbs Thhough Maii.— Intent to Dbpiî.^ud — EyroESfCB.— �The f act that defendant received letters in answer to an advertisement, and the fact that the letter inclosing the advertisement to the news- paper in which it was published was in the defendant's handwriting, warranted the court in charging, under the circumatances of this case, that such facts were evidence that defendant mailed such letter and advertisement. �Uniied States v. Moelke, 1 Fbd. Bep. 426-442. �Writ of Error under the Act of March 3, 1879. �Matthew Haie, for plaintiff. �Martin I. Townsend, Dist. Att'y, for the United States. ����
