expresMy, withQutany 'uncertainty/or '$etforth all the menta necessary to constitute, the offense intended to be punished; and, an irid;ctment that chlirges the offense'i'il'thelanguage of the sfututeis sufficient. U. S; v.' CarU. 105 U. '8:611.' Turning to the indictm'ent. it seen that it charges that defendants, at a cer· tain'designated time, did willfully,unlawfully, wrongfully, and knowingly deposit and cause to be depbsited in the United States post-office at the city of Los Angeles, to be conveyed' and delivered. by United States mail, 'jl;" ctlrlain newspaper, (describing it,) which said' newspaper then and there contained a list of prizesavvarded at the d'rawingof a certain lottery, (describing it;) the defendants then and there well knowing that the said newspaper then and there by them deposited and caused to be deposited, to be conveyed and delivered by the said mail, contained such list of prizes awarded at the drawing of such lottery, and then and there concerned a lottery,and then and, there to be u.nmailable matter. The newspaper described in the first count of the indictment, and alleged to have been so deposited, and causeclto be deposited, tOQe so conveyed and delivered, is therein alleged to have been addressed to "John Wolfskill,.,Santa Similar offenses are alleged 'in the, second, and fourth of the indictment; except thatiri the second 'the newspaper therein chargedtp have been by the deposited'and caused to be deposited, to be conveyed and delivered ,by the United States mail, is alleged to hR.ve been addressed "Outlook X;" in the third, to have been addressed. "F. R. Ellis;" and in "Santa ,The address'goes only to the point of the identification of the alleged t6 have been deposited lthd caused to be deposited, and to indicate to whom or where it is to be conveyed and delivered. The gist of the offense consists in the or caUSIng to be to be conveyed or delivered' by the niail, any newspaper ,containh)g or ing to the prohibited matter. Nor is it goodgtound of objection to the inpictlllent that it not allf'ge the payment of postage upon the, papers 1'0 question. The statute dbesnot make prepayment of postage an element of the defined. " The indictment is, in my opinion" sufthe- deDl:\U"l'er is therefore overr¥ed.' . . "
Febf\1allJ' 95, 1892.)
FALSI!I IN BTA.'tBMENor-1..NATIONAL' B'ANKS-EviDBNoB. ' False entries in, a statement, made by 'a book-keeplll'at. t.he request. of t.he bank purporting to give the balance!! due, which statement it wu the duty of the examiner to make. and not of the book-keeper, will not sustain an indictInent tor making "false·entries in i , . .. · a !!tatement of the 88fIOciatloxa.Jlfll1er aev. St. 5.200. .
of the Philadelphia bar
· UNITED -STATES'll·. EQE.
\.t Law. Indictment underR,ev.St. 5209, of Gha,rles R. Eqe, book-keeper of the Keystone National Bank of Philadelphia, the charge being that he had made entries in a statement prepared by him at the request and for the use of the hank examiner. The statement contained three kinds of misstatements-JilirBt, accounts appearing in the individual ledger were omitted in balance-sheet; second, checks were improperly deducted; third, balanses were entered at less amounts than actually to the credit of the d.epositors,-all tending to' make theliabilit:J7 of the bank to the depositors less. The eviderice showed that Eqehad been req:\lested to make the statement by the examiner on the ground of the illness of the examiner's assistant, and thatjtwas the custom. of the examiner to make such a'statementpersonally, and it was no part of the duty of the bank's book-keeper to do it. Verdict directed for defendant. W. W. Carr, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John R. Read, U. S. Atty. JohnM. Swang, Hampton L. Gzr8On, and Richard P. White,for defendant.
BUTLER, District Judge, (charging jury, (yf'alby.) I am decided in the opinion that it would be unjust to hold that congress, in fixing the responsibility of bank officers, intended to cover such an aetas was performed by this defendant, at the expense of the examinei.'. ·The statute defines explicitly the duties of such officers; the books which the clerks should keep; tre statements and reports they shall make; and requires faithfulness and honesty in the discharge of these duties, making the officers re.sponsible criminally, and subjecting them tosevere penalties for failure. I consider it clear that a proper construction of the statute will not permit -the defendant to be held responsible under it for the services he rendered the examiner. His act in complying with the examiner's request was voluntary; as an officer -of the bank. he was not required to perform it. Even if this view was open to question, the. defendant should have the benefit of th", doubt; but in my judgment there is no room for doubt. The statute.is highly penal, and should therefore a strict con£truction. The defendant is therefore entitled to an acquittal. While it is not before us for consideration,the explanation made by his coun· sel-that the: defendant wrote the statement in question without seeingthe books from'Yl'hich it purported to be made, the items and figures being read out to him by another officer of the bank, who is now suffering for :his crimes-ie,doubtless worthy of credit.
nDQ.u. ,REPORTER, vol.
(Circuit OOOrl,8. D. New York. Maroh 18, 1899.)
1; 'ComIlm'l'-FIO'1'lTIous One wbo doesbusines8 uDder a ooilventlonalor.ll.ctltlous partM1'8blp name may obtain.a valid oopyright under tbat' name, and may sne to restrain an infringement thereof w1tqQut averring the filing of the certill.cate required by the New York statutes. I. · ..\. bill for infringement of. copyrlgbt, wbtch avers that two copies of the book , ,were d!lposlted in the librarian's office at Washington wltbln 10 4ays after publicatlQu, wltbout'&11eglng that the book was publilihed within a reasonable time after the depoliitof tJie copy of the title.
IpJl:quity. Suita for infringement of copyright. the bills. Overruled. Cox, for plaintiffs. Jarnea A. Whitney, fordefendanta.
On demurrer to
SHIPMAN, District Judge. These are demurrers to the plaintiff's bills in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of a copyright. The matters demurred to are the same in each bill, and the demurrers are, mutatiunut.andiA, identical. Each bill alleges that the authors of a book enti-tled"Scribner's Statistica!! Atlas of the United States" assigned all their ,right, title, and interest therein, before publicatidn and before de. positing a printed title thereof with the proper officor, to Charles Scribwho then constituted.and was the sole member of the firm of Charles Scribner's Sons, who, being such sale member, did the various acts re. quired to copyright the book in the name of Charles Scribner's Sons.' Subsequently Arthur H; Scribner became a member of said firm, which has, continued to: publish, said book. Tile main ground of the demurrer is th8t;no valid copyright exists, because Chllrles Scribner was engaged in business a fictitious name, that no lawful jUl'Itification for the use ofsaid name is alleged, and tha't "he' should have caused the copy- ' takeidn hisindividualnrime. It appears from the bill that th,eaj;llignee and owner was, for a time, doing bUBllless under the name of Cryarles Scribner's Sons, and during this periOd ,he hought the right to obtain a copyright upon the ;book which he apparently proposed to publish, and did thereafter pubhsh, inssid business. At common law, indh'iduals are permitted to "carryon business under any llume or style which they may choose to adopt," (Manham v. Sharpe, 17 C. B., N. S., 442;) and, "if persons trade or carryon business under a name, style, or firm, whatever may be done by them undtlr that name is as "alid as ifreal names had been used," (1 Lindl. Partn., Ewell's Ed., 208.) In some of the states of this country, the use at a conventional or fictitious firm name is regulated or controlled by codes or statutes. I do not know whether the New York statutes in regard to the filing of certificates