In the 1911 case of Hendricks v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to mail fraud. The defendant, Mr. Hendricks, was charged with using the U.S Postal Service to defraud individuals by selling counterfeit coins and misrepresenting them as genuine rare coins in advertisements sent through mail. He appealed his conviction arguing that he had not committed a crime because no one had actually been defrauded; all customers received their money back upon returning the fake coins. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld his conviction stating that it is still considered fraud even if there is a possibility for victims to get their money back after being deceived initially. The court reasoned that offering refunds did not negate initial fraudulent intent or actions taken under false pretenses via postal service which violated federal law against mail fraud.

In the dissenting opinion for Hendricks v. United States, 1911, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies provided by prosecution witnesses. They also pointed out that some key pieces of evidence used against Hendricks could have been interpreted differently or disregarded entirely due to their questionable relevance and reliability. Furthermore, they criticized the trial judge's instructions to the jury as being biased towards conviction, which may have unduly influenced its decision-making process. In conclusion, these justices felt strongly that Hendricks did not receive a fair trial and thus his constitutional rights were violated.