UNITED. STATES i;. NOEljKE. 441 �illegal article in the mail, in case you find it to bave been there deposited. If you find that this Exhibit No. 1 was de- posited ia the mail, and you find that these two papers that •were in it — in one case a letter and in the other case a cir- cular — were concerning a lottery, then the question arises, ■who deposited these papers in the mail? Before proceeding to that I should remark that there has been evidence going to show the existence of a lottery known as the Louisiana State Lottery. The evidence from the statute-books of the state of Louisiana, together with the sale of the tickets put in evidence, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, will justify you in finding that there is such a lottery as the Louisiana State Lottery. If you find that this letter, Exhibit No. 1, was deposited in thfi mail, and that the papers in it are concerning a lottery in existence — the Louisiana State Lottery — you then corne to the question whether the defend- ant is shown to have deposited Exhibit No. 1 in the mail, as charged." �The court f urther charged the jury that they must be satis- fied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the letter (Exhibit No. 1) was mailed; that the papers in it were concerning a lottery, and the man who deposited it, or caused it to be deposited, was the defendant. ïhe defendant excepted to that part of the foregoing portion of the charge which states that the occupa- tion of the defendant is to be considered in determining whether the letter concems a lottery, and that the jury may resort to surrounding circumstanees to determine as to the character of the letter and circular; also to the language, "that the evidence of the statute-book and the sale of the tickets have proven that there is such a thing as the Louisiana State Lot- tery;" and thereupon the court f urther charged that the evi- dence of the statute of Louisiana and of the sale of tickets was evidence from which the jury may conclude that there is such a lottery, in the absence of proof to the contrary. To this further charge the defendant excepted. �That the defendant's occupation of a dealer in lottery tick- ets, and the other extrinsic circumstanees, were proper to be considered by the yary, on the question whether the letter ��� �
