BRAKD t>. tmiTED STATES. 395 �Blatohfobd, C. J. The plaintiff in error, Brand, was in- dicted in the district court under section 5480 of the Eevîsed Btatutes. That section provides as follows: "If any person having devised, or intending to devise, any scheme or artifice to defraud or be effected by either opening, or intending to open, correspondence or communication with any other per- son, whether resident within or outside of the United States, by means of the post-office establishment of the United States, or by inciting such other person to open communica- tion with the person so desiring or intending, shall, in and for executing such scheme or artifice, or attempting so to do, place any letter or packet in any post-office of the United States, or take or receive any therefrom, such person so mis- using the post-office establishment, shall be punishable by a fine of nôt more than $500, and by imprisonment for not more than 18 months, or by both such punishments." It is plainthat the word "or," in the expression "or be effected," is a clerical mistake for the wôtd "to." The expression should be, "to be effected." As it is it is meaninglegs, and ■with it the whole provision is incomplete. If the reading be, "to be effected," the provision is complete and harmon- ious. The scheme to defraud is tb be effected by the deviser of it opening a correspondence by mail, or by his inciting Bome one elae to open such correspondence with him. The mistake exists in the original statute, section 301 of the act of June 8, 1872, (17 U. S. St. at Large, 323.) �The indictment contains two counts. The first count alleges that Brand, "at Plattsburgh af oresaid, in the district aforesaîd, on the sixth day of August, A. D. 1878, knowingly, ■wrongfully, and unlawf uUy devised a certain scheme and artifice to defraud, to be then and there effected by Opening, and intending to open, correspondence and communication with divers other persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, by means of the post-office establishment of the United States, to-wit, the said Anselm P. Brand did then and there know- ingly, wrongfully, and unlawfuUy devise a certain scheme and artifice to defraud divers persons, to the jurors aforesaid nnknown, of divers sums of money, to the jurors aforesaid ����
