JNITED STATES V; DUFF. 47 �It is further contended that error waa ctunmitted in reius- ing to direct an acquittai, when requested so to do, upon the ground that the letter containing the circular in question was incapable of delivery, being addressed to a fictitious name, and therefore was not within the scope of the statute creating the offence. But lettersaddressed to fictitious names are not incapable of delivery, as this case shows. Moreover, the statute says nothing about delivery. It deals with mailing' and sending to be mailed* The words are: "No letter or circular concerning lotteries ^ * * shall be carried in the mail. Any person who shall knowingly deposit or send anything to be conveyed by mail in violation of this section shall be punished," etc. The case shows that a letter con- taining a circular concerning a lottery was deposited in the mail. The jury found that the defendant deposited the let- ter with intent to have it conveyed. by mail. The finding was justified by the evidence, and it ;brought the -defendant within the scope of the statute,-> The letter waa none the less a letter deposited in the mail for j the ,purpose-of being conveyed by mail, because at the place to which it was cont veyed it was delivered to a person who was corresponding under a fictitious name. Nor does it make any difference in t^e act done by the defendant :that the person to whom the letter was delivered was an offioer of the United Sjiates. Thef refusai to direct an acquittai was therefore fcorrect. ■ �The remainder of the questions presented arose in the course) of empanelling the jury. Befprethe jury was sworn the defendant moved to quash the panel, and, in support of the motion, read an affidavit. showing that Anthony L; Goinatock, who was to be a witnesg against him, had conversed- with some of the jurymen on the panel about lottery proseoutions, and the evidence gathered by him and in his possession, ^nd> what he expected to do in the future; and that three of the jurymen drawn heard the conversation, or portions theieof. The motion was denied. At the most, the motion was eqpiv- lent to a challenge to the array. Manifestly, thef aota sliown afford no support to a challenge to the array. The motioil to quash the panel was therefore properly rdenied. . ��� �
