The grounds of said motion are alleged defects in the indictment, as follows: First, failure to charge the ownership of the shirt therein described; second, failure to charge any wrongful intent upon the part of the .defendant.

Defendant’s contention is that the interference with the mails denounced by the first clause' of section 5469, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3692], under which clause the present indictment was found, must be such, an asportation as would, if made of private property, constitute technical larceny. The case mainly relied on by defendant, Jones v. United States (C. C.) 27 Fed. 447 , supports his contention,but that case, although decided by an eminent jurist, stands alone,'and is directly opposed by numerous authorities of equal respectability,: all holding that the section was designed solely to protect the mails, *477 and that, while it includes larceny as understood at common law, it is not restricted to that offense, but makes criminal any unauthorized abstraction from the mails of postal matter. U. S. v. Falkenhainer (C. C.) 21 Fed. 624 ; U. S. v. Jolly (D. C.) 37 Fed. 108 ; U. S. v. Baugh (C. C.) 1 Fed. 784 ; U. S. v. Dorsey (D. C.) 40 Fed. 752 ; and U. S. v. Atkinson (D. C.) 34 Fed. 316 .

The first ground of defendant’s motion is disposed of in United States v. Falkenhainer, third paragraph of syllabus, as follows:

In the body of the decision, Justice Brewer, then Circuit Judge, says:

With reference to the second ground of defendant’s motion, it may be well to observe, again, that the word “steal” in said clause is not used, as already indicated, to designate technical larceny, but means simply “to take without right or leave,” and the use of that word in the indictment sufficiently charges wrongful intent. In United States v. Atkinson, supra, the first paragraph of the syllabus, which was prepared by the court, is as follows:

In the body of the opinion the court says;

*478 I am of opinion that in the case-at bar it was sufficient to .charge the offense in the words of the statute, and that the indictment is not- open to either of the objections urged against it. The motion in arrest of judgment will be denied. ' '