592
. J'}l:DERAL REPORTJl}R,
.vol. 44.
mained a surplus, it might be used in paying indebtedness of former years. The amended charter of 1886 expressly dedicated 20 per cent. of the proceeds of the taxes, even before they were levied, to the highly meritorious purpose of perlllanent improvements. This dedication, in our opinion, was in violation of no right of the relator, and it is not a surplus, but a legally appropriated sum, which the relator asks should be applied to the payment of his judgments. Our opinion, therefore, is that there is no surplus shown,but that the amount remaining unexpendedis dC3stined by the legislature to the purpose of permanent public improvements, and cannot be diverted from that purpose either by the city or its creditors; and that there was no intention on the part of the legislature to guaranty or pledge to any of its creditors any surplus; certainly not to the creditors whose debts arose after 1877. .
UNrr£D , OBSTJlUO'l'lNG MAILS-INTENT·
STATES '11. WOODWARD.
(Df.Btrlct Court. E. D. South. CaroZ1.na. January 6, 1891.)
.. . A postmaster carried the man to a station in a bag, and, while waiting for the train, laid it on a truck,and walked down the track to see some brioks unioaded from a oar. On his return he met defendant, the owner of the bricks, who be!!'an quarreling with him as to the manner pf unloading them, and finally struck him. By-standers separated them; and the IIlailwas dUly delivered to the train on its ar· rival, Held thatl before defendant could be oonvicted of obstruoting the mails. the jury' must believe that he knew his acts would have that elfect, and intended that they should.
Information for Obstructing the Mail.
MdJ. Woodward and W·. Q. Davia, for defendant. SWONTON,J. The defendant was on trial for knowingly and willfully obstructing or retarding the passage of the mail. The evidence for the prosecution was to this effect: The postmaster at Monticello, S. C., who is alsoraiiroad and at that point, had carried the mailbag to the station to meet a train. He was about 10 minutes ahead of tfltin time. He placed the mail-bag on a truck, and went about 100 feet dQWn the track,. to see some bricks unloading from a car. On his return to.wardsthe bag he met the delimdant, the owner of the bricks, who began quarreling with him about the manner of unloading them. During the, quarrel defendant struck the postmaster. By-standers interfered, and they were separated. The train coming up shortly afterwards, the D:).ailW8S duly and safely delivered. The defenr1ant, having taken the stand, told his side of the quarrel. Being asked by the district attorney iCpedid not see the mail-bag, and did he not know that the postmaster on his official business, .and that he was obstructed in it, he answer.etl ,tha.-t he did not know or think anything of the mail. Thejury
UNITED STATES'll. WILSON.
593
were instructed that in order to convict the defendant they must believe from the testimony that he knew that his acts on that occasion would have that effect, and that he performed them with the intention that such would be their operation. U. S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 486. The jury found defendant not guilty.
UNITED STATES .". WILSON.
(DEstl/'fct Court, E. D. South Carolina. January 8,1891.) $rBJ.LmG:LETTERS PROMTBE MAlLo-INTENT.
Where a boy under12 years is tried under Rev. St. U. S. 5 54.69, for stealing letters from the mail, ,and it appears that he took tbem from boxes in tbe post-office, carried tbem home, tbrew them carelessly aside, without opening or mutilating them, and, wben asked about tbem by the postmaster, at once brought them back, it is a question for the jury whether he took them with criminal in\ent, or from a spirit of boyish mischief, and they may convict him or acquit him accordingly.
Indidment. Larceny from the mails. Abial'Laihr{YJJ, Dist. Atty. S. J. Lee, for defendant. SIMONTQN, J., (charging jury.) The defendant is indicted under section 5469, Rev. St., for stealing letters from the mail. You have heard the testimony. The defendant went into the post-office at Orangeburg, and took f.-om an open box, and the locked box next to it, several letters. He carried them home without opening them or mutilating them in any way. He threw them carelessly aside. When asked about them by the postmaster, he went ,at once and brought them back. He is charged with stealing the letters. Hthe testimony satisfies you that he took these letters with criminal intent,---:-that is to say, with the intent of converting them to his own use,-he is guilty. But if, because of his extreml' youth, ,(he is under 12 years of age,) you come to the conclusion that he took them in a spirit of boyish mischief, either not knowing or not realizing the criminality of the act, you may acquit him.. Rex v. Owen, 4 ,Car. & P. 23,6. The jury found him guilty, with a recommendation to v.44F.no.8-38