664
FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 40.
the article is similar in material, and apparently in texture, to the albu. men of commerce which is imported here, and which is enumerated on the free-list; but there is no evidence as to the use to which the albu· men so imported is applied, and, therefore, there is nothing from which to deduce a similarity in use, as between that article andthis dried yolk. As to·the claim that it is similar to eggs, which also are on the free-list, while there is proof of similarity of material, and perhaps of use, the texture seems to be entirely different. As to the claim made in the protest that this importation was an article not manufactured, the failnre of the plaintiffs to offer any proof as to how it was made removes that question from the case. The collector has classified it as a manufactured article, and the presumption is that his decision was correct. There is no eVbdence to the contrary, and it cannot, therefore, be .classified as unman· ufactured. Verdict directed· for defenda.nt. ...
UNITED STATES
fl.
BAYLE.
(Dl8triot Oourt, E. D. Mil/8oun, E. D. December 14,;1889.)
L
PosT·OFnou-,-NoN-}[AILABLlIl MATTER-TJmIlATlilNING POSTAL-CARDS;.
a
A postal-c8rd demanding payment of a debt, and stating' that "if it is not paid I!ot once we shall place the same with our lawyer for collection," is non-mailable matter, within 25 St. U.S. the mailing .of a postal-card, envelope, . or wrapper, the outside of WhlCh language of a "threatening character, " or· I1uiguage "calculated * * · and obviously intended to refleot upon the chlll'3cter or conduct" of the person to whom it is addressed. . A llostal-ca'rd containing the words, "Please call and settle account, which is long past due, and for which our collector has called severaL times, and obl1ge. " is not within the as the language cannot be said to be threatening or 0l%enlliV8 to the person addressed, or such as to attr!'Ct public notice. . .
.
SAME.
On Demurrer to Indictment. GelYT'ge D. Reynolds, U. S. Dist. Atty· .,D. P. Dyer, for defendant.' :·.11
THAYER, J. This is an indictment in three counts, under the act of Septenlber 26,1888, (25 St. U. S. 496,) for depositing postal-cards of uri alleged nori·mailablecharacter in the mails. The postal-cards in question were each addressed t{) John Greb, 2201 Franklin avenue, St. Louis, and are of the following tenor: "AT. LOUIS, April 12th, 1889. !. "Please call and settle account, which is long past due, and for which OUi' collector has called several times, and oblige, ST. LOUIS PRETZEL Co." " Respe c.t1'ully, "ST. LOUIS, April 18th, 1889. owe Us $1.80.' We have called several times for same. If not paid once, we ahaH place same With our law agency for collection. .. . "Respectfully, ST. LOUIS PRETZEL Co."
lJNlTED STATES fl. BA.YLE.
665
"ST. May 1st, 1889. "You owe UR $1.80, long past due. We have called several times for the amount. If it is not paid at once, we shall place same with our lawyer for collection. "Respectfully, ST. LoUIS PRETZEL Co."
Section 1 of the act of September 26, 1888, provides" that all matter, otherwise mailable by law, upon the envelope or outside cover or wrapper of which,or any postal-card upon which, any delineations, epithets, terms, or language, of any indecent, lewd, lascivious, obscene, libelous, scurrilous l defamatory, or threatening character, or calculated by theterms or manner or style of display, and obviously intended, to reflect injuriously upon the character or conduct of another, may be written or printed, or otherwise impressed or apparent, are hereby declared mailable matter, and shall not be conveyed in the mails," etc. If the postal-cards in question are non-mailable, it is because they contain language of a "threatening character," within the meaning of the law, or because they contain language "calculated * * * and obviously tended to reflect injuriously upon the character or conduct" of the person to whom they were addressed. It is clear that they fall within no clause of the statute unless they are within the clauses last referred to. Two of the cards, as it will be observed, contain a demand for the payin ment of money alleged to be due, and a threat to place the the hands of a lawyer for collection, if not paid at once. The question, therefore, arises whether congress intended to prohibit the mailing of postal-cards containing or on which are written threats of that kind. The language of the statute is very general, and certainly may be construed as a.prohibition againsimailing postal-cards which contain threats to bring suits if debts are not paid, as well as being a prohibition against mailing cards Gontaining threats of personal violence or threats of any other character. It is most probable, I think, that congress intended the act should receive that construction. It is a well-known fact that prior to the passage of the law some persons had made a practice of forcing the payment of debts by mailing postal-cards or letters bearing offensive,threatening, or abusive matter, which was open to theinspection of all' persons through whose hands such postal-cards or letters happened to pass. In some quarters the practice alluded to of sending communications through the mail that were both calculated and intended to humiliate, and injure the persons addressed in public estimation, had become one of the recognized methods of compelling the payment of debts. Congress evidently intended by the act of September 26, 1888, to utterly suppress the practice in question. It has not only declared that libelous, scurrilous, and defamatory matter written on postal-cards, or on envelopes containing letters, shall not be disseminnted through the mails, but that no matter of a "threatening character," or that is "calculated * * * and * * * intended to reflect. injuriously upon character or conduct," shall be so disseminated, if written on postal-cards, or 011 the envelopes of letters. and hence is open to ,public inspection. I coIic1ude.that·a postal-card on whichjswritten a
666
nDftAL REPORTER,
vol.
demand for the payment of a debt, and a threat to sue, or to place the demand in the hand of It lawyer for suit, if the debt is not paid, is nOW non-mailable matter. Henceforth persons writing sMh demands and threats must inclose them in sealed envelopes, or subject themselves to criminal prosecution. The demurrer to the second and third counts is not well taken, and is therefore overruled as to those counts. The language employed in the postal-card, described in the first count is not of a threatening character, and, in my opinion, no jury would be warranted in finding, in view of its contents, that it was obviously intended 'by the writer to reflect injuriously on the character or ,conduct of the person addressed, or to injure 01' degrade him in the eyes of the puhHc. It is true that it contains a demand for the payment of a debt, and says that it is long past due, and that a collector has <'.aIled several times; ,but it is couched in respectful terms, and no intent is apparent to put it in such form as 'to attract public notice, or to make it offensive to the person addressed. Congress has not declared that postal-cards shall not be used to make such demands, and a construction of the act ought not to be adopted that will unnecessarily restrict their use for 'business purposes. The card in qllestioncannot be held to be non-mailable, without being overcritical and extremely punctilious in the choice of language which men tnay lawfully use in their daily transactions. The demurrer is accordingly sustained as to the first count.
EDISON ELECTRIO LIGHT
Co. ".
WESTINGHOUSE
et aI.
(Oirau.it OOUTt, 1). New JurBC/J. October 1,1889.) Pj.'l'El'fTB:rOB INVEl'f'l'xoN-Dmu.'1'xol'f.
Under Rev. St.U. B. § 4887, providing tbat every patent for an invention previously patented in a foreigu country IIba11 be 110 limited as to expire when the foreign patent does, not to exceed 17 years in any event, where a complaint, in a bUlfor infringing a patent for an invention previouslY patented in a foreign country, alleges that tbe foreign patent is still in force, and the answer alleges that it had expired before suit brought, the duration of the patent is a matter to be adjUdicated by the courts on evidence in pais.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent. John e. Tomlinson and O. A. Seward, for oomplainant. Wm. BakeweU and Samuel A. Duncan, for defendants. Before MCKENNAN and WALES, JJ. PERCURIA.M. The bill filed in tbis case is for an infringement of letters patent No. 264;642, dated September 19, 1882, granted to the complainant, as assignee of Thomas A; Edison, who was the,original 'applicant therefol,-inventor of the improvement therein described. The defendant has pleaded that a patent for the same invention had ibeen iesued to the Thomas A. Edison by the Austro.Hungarian '"