574
FEDERAL
Rll:PORTER, ,vo];43.
5MG Jdoes f not, .e:iq:>ressJ;r 01' impliedly, repeal, 'modify t or change the provisions of section 554L The demul;OOr in the case of U. S. v. Smith. and"inithecase·of U. S. v. Oobb is therefore overruled.
STATEs "-', .
v.
CLARK.
'(D¥tHct Court, S.D. Iowa, w. D. '
.
,-
'.'
September 27. 1890.) '
O'rnNnIlAGAIN8'l' THE MAILB-'-INt>EoENT LBTTERIl· . ' YOnder Rev. at. U. B. § 8893. 'aeclaring that "every obscene,lewd, or lascivious bQok, pamphlet, picture, lJ.aper. let.ter. writing, print, or other pUblication of an indecent' character, * *'. .. are berE-by declared to be non-mailable matter, "and q8Claring that! any person wbo mails any such matter shall be liable. to punishIlleljt, t,he mailing of a Jettier of character, but which is not obscene, leWd, or lascivioull, is not an offense, for it is not a "publication"within the mean· ing of the statute. . " ,
.,At. Law.
Lewi8.MuB$, Dist. Atty., for the UI;lited States. W. F. Sapp,' for defendant.
Indictp)ent for aending indecent letters through the malls.
·
SHIRAS, J. The indictment in this case is based upon· section 3893 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of September 26, 1888, !lnd which enacts that "everyobscene,lewd, or lascivious book,pam. phlet,picture, paper, letter, writing,print, or other publication of an indecent character, ,* * * are hereby declared to be non-mailable matter;" and further declares that parties who knowingly mail any such matter areJiable to. punishment. The charge in the indictment is that the defendant knowingly deposited in the post-office, to .be forwarded and delivered to a party named, a letter of an indecent character, the contents being set forth in the indictment. The demurrer presents the question whether a letter of. an indecent chflracter is within the terms of the statute. As set forth in the indictment, the letter contains threats figainst the party to whom it is addressed, and also contains indecent epithets, the whole production being of a highly reprehensiblec9aracter, bringing it within .the description given it in the indictment; thatis, a letter ofindecent character. There is, however, nothing of an obscene, lewd,or lascivious nature contained in the letter. In support of the demurrer it is urged that the words, "or other publication of an indecent character," do not provide a further or' distinct class of nonmailable matter, but thatthese words are intended to be a further limitationupon' the obl!cene, lewd, or lascivious publications named in the first part of the sentence; and that to come within the statute the book, writinp;, letter. ()r other matter must be obscene, lewd, or lascivious, and of an indecent cha.racter. On behalf of the government it is contended that these words, "or other publication of an indecent chal'8cter," are intended to define a new or
ClONSoLID'A'l'En, BOLLER-MILL CO.· tI.,·WALEEB.
676
additional' class of non-mailable mattel'; and. that if tile pubUcation iI of an indecent character it falls within the 'prohibition of the statute, although not be obscene, lewd, or It'is not necessary in this case to decide. whichof these views of the sectfonis correct. If it be admitted that the words named do define a further class of nonmailable matter, as is claimed 9Y the district attorney, Ilevertheless the class thus defined includesonlypnblicr.tions of an indecent character, and a letter is not a publication within the meaning Q{this clause. In theC8Se 'of U. B.v. ChaSe, 135 U. S. 255, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 756, the question whether the sending a letter from one person to anothflr made it a publication within the meaning of the statute is discussed, end the conclusion reached that "the statute prohibits the conveyance by mail of matter which is a publication before it is mailed, and not such as becomes a publication by reason of . its being mailedj" and therefore that a letter was not included within the words "other publication. case arose under the statute as it was before the amendment of 1888 'Was but the, construction of the phrase, publication," as fOJ)nd in the statute before the alDendlDent, is applicable to it as it now .the amendment. The letter, therefore, set up in the preseptindictment, not. being a publication within the meaning of the stat. not being of an obscene, lewd, or lasciviousobaracter, does not falHvitbin the prohibitionof,tbe statute, and the indictment fails to, Ibow ,the commission of ai;t. offense against its provisions. J)emurrer iI lustained.
CoNSOLIDATED (CCf'CUU
RoLLER-MILl. Co.
f1.
W ALOR.
W. D. PmmyZ1lanfd.
Beptembltr 12, 1890.)
l.PA'l'IilftIII'OB SKILL. The first claim of letters patent No. 228,525, grant'ld June 8, 1880, to WWlam D. for improvements in rolJer grinding-mills. namely" (1) In a roller grindi,ngmill, the cODlbi,nation o.f tbe counter-shaft, prOvlded with pulleys at botb end&; and having saidendll mounted invertlcally and independently adjustable bearings, the rells,C. E, having pUlleys collnected by belts with one end of the counter-sbaft, and thtl rolls, D, F ' independently connected by belts with the other end of the eounter-llhaft,u sh ()wn," doee 'not disclose any patentable'subject-matter. The application ot belting to drive roller grindillg"wills did not .l¢.ginate and his peculiar arrangement resulted at most ttl an improvement in degree merely, and said combination evinced only tbe exercise of ordinary meeb8nieal or engineering skilL .. STATB OJ' ABT. In 'view of the terms of thespiloifioatioll and the prior state of the art, said olalm C()uld, npt be so, 001'lstrul'das to cover a roller-mill manufactured:in accordance with lett.ers patent No. 834,460, granted January 19. 1886, to John T. Obenchain· .. SAMs-FOREIGN PATENT.
By the Austrianpatent law, thefb;ed longest duration of II patent for an Uon 1815 years, and every patentee wbose prlvilege bas been granted for a shorter pe.lri.00. than tbe.lo,ngest may: c.la.im.its prolongatio.n for one·.o.r m.or.8 years wit.b'in' the fixed longest period, prOVided such prolongati,on be demanded before the privilege bail beCODle extinct. In the origInal grant of an patellt, the allowance of . ,the' ,franchise was for one year·. but on request it was four times extended; from and at the end of.the,1ifth .:real" the franchise wu, to eliPil'e. , 781U'.to