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

DDEBAL

REPORTER,

vol. 44.

UNITED STATES 11. McEwAN.

(Circuit Court;

s. D. New

York. December 29, 1800.)

ASSJ.ULTING INSPEOTOR OF CUSTOMS.

An inspector of customs, wbose official duties require him to be at a particular dock, tbere to await tbe arrival of a vessel, so as to watch the discbarg-e of ber cargo or superintend it, if at such a place for that purpose, is tbere in tbe discharge of his duties as such inspector, and an assault made on tbe inspector under such circumstances is such an interference witb the discharge of bis official duties as to bring the offender within the provisions of section 5447 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Petition for Writ of Habea8 Corpus. , :was arrested on complaint of one Hovell, an inspector of, customs, which charged the defendant· with having aSlll1ulted .him while4e(coIiiplainant) at North river, in the of his duties as such inspector. On the examination the following facts appeared: Th'at'the complainant waS an inspector of cUEltoms, detailed to pier 25 N.orth river, there of a certain vesselL to watch the dIscharge of her cargo,and to Bupermtend the same. ,The complainant was sitting in a small frame house atthe head of the dock, which the defendant entered. As he .in, the complainant was reading a qewspaper, and, at, that pi\rticular time was not engaged in perfoi'miiigany 'of his auties as ihspec,lbr of customEl.Some discussion tookplace between the compl.ainant'iind the delendant,when the latter struck,the conlplainant. At the1clbse of the ease for the government, defendant's counsel moved for the discharge of the defendant, upon the ground that the assault was not committed on thecoII!-plainant while he was acting in the discharge of his duties as an inspectorofcustoms; and therefore the case did not come within the provisions of '544TOf the Revised Statutes of the United States. The commissioner denied ·. No evidence then being offered in behaIfofthe defendant, the commissioner held the defendant in bail, to await the action of the grand Jury. This is a proceeding to review the action of the commis.. sionerbywrit of certiorari aI1d habea8 corpus. ; Mamell Evarts, Asst. U. S. Atty. . Heui;;Pown8end &: McOleUand, (Charle's A. He88, of counsel,) for defendant.
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The facts of this case seem clearly within the phraseology of section 5447. The officer was, during the hours devoted to the discharge of his official duty, at the place where he was assigned to discharge that duty. He was as much engaged in that service while sitting at his post waiting for the arrival of the ship, or the discharge of the cargo, as he would have been if superintending such discharge. Moreover, at the very moment the physical assault was committed he was actually engaged in an examination of papers officially before him, and inquiring as to the disappearance of certain