United States v. Huilsman

94 F. 486, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedMay 8, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 94 F. 486 (United States v. Huilsman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Huilsman, 94 F. 486, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125 (E.D. Mo. 1899).

Opinion

ADAMS, District Judge

(orally). This is not a new question with me. I had occasion lately, while holding court in the Western district, to examine the law very carefully. I then held that section 3892, Rev. St., did not, when properly construed, contemplate such a case as this, and, if it did, it was doubtful if the power of congress, under the constitution, would permit such legislation. Congress has full power, under the constitution, to regulate the carrying of the mail, and to protect all mail matter as long as it is in the custody of the postal authorities. When the postal authorities have fully discharged their duties, by delivery of the letter to the person to whom or in whose care it was addressed, they have fully discharged their functions, and in my opinion have gone as far as congress has authorized them to go. Whatever offense the defendant has committed, if any, in this case, is one which may be cognizable under state law, but is not under the United States law. The jury will return a verdict of “Not guilty.” That being done, the defendant will be discharged.

Verdict accordingly. Defendant discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Ashford
403 F. Supp. 461 (N.D. Iowa, 1975)
United States v. Chapman
179 F. Supp. 447 (E.D. New York, 1959)
United States v. Maxwell
137 F. Supp. 298 (W.D. Missouri, 1955)
United States v. Sehon Chinn
85 F. Supp. 558 (S.D. West Virginia, 1949)
Huebner v. United States
28 F.2d 929 (Sixth Circuit, 1928)
United States v. Burlington
170 F. 121 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Alabama, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 F. 486, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-huilsman-moed-1899.