J'EDERAL REPOBUB,
50.
States there bas been no ease in which the parties were situas theysl'e in the' YoungOase.The case most like the one we nave,llmong those referred to,. is' In 1'e Jackson, 15 Mich. 416-442. that cas'e'it llppea.ts that the court Of Michigan, under the of thatstat.e,can isslle of habeas cprp'llfJ, and application was made in thatQOurt for such 1&' writ in a case in which the partiessituated as, and the facts like, they are in this case. Theooutt was, equally divided in opinion; and the w-rit failed because a the judg'esdi'Cf not agree;. but the judges who thought the issu,e werE! CQOLEY and QHn,IsnANCY, so that the case,'isnot aubut the the writ should issue'are eminent, ,and, .-especteq fQr the weight of their legal opinions. One. controlling!teaSoo. for the opinion of the two judges who believed the court was withOtil)titisdictionwas that the law of Michigan in express terms con.. fi i.n 8U:Ch'.eas t.,.o.. person.s "d.e.ta.in.ed within the state;.'" . .. ,in'. .(IWhittr say; this subJect is careour' own, state unlaW,fully held m custody who .is himself witllin the jurisdiction of this court. If he is here, the wrong iis .being done here, for the wrong .is ',pm' of, is exercised." Ex parte Forbes, 1 ",rit in Y01,1og's favor, though all thatjsjnajsted qpoJ;1 were truel,\s to the state of case ,CEHk W!-rdlype main.tained .under the scope and of the .supreme court of the United CQnclusi!)J;1 is .that the petitioner's detention and llrenot, w.ithout dUf3 .process of law, or in of the or law of thf3,pnited and hia.application for a writ of is
on
,
·i'
iI'
., "j,,
.GRIMM.
.. -(Dtttf'fct COllII't, 1i1. D. Mt88oUrl, E. D. Hay 21, 1_)
, . 1·.
No. 8,408." .
... . Ai11ndlOtment. under ltev·· St. U. s. 5 8698, for mailing letters giving Information. whereobsoene plotllres ""n obtained" is not bad because the letters, as set out in the'ind{ctment; do not in'tltemselves.sh<ht that the piotures referred to are obscene, where, theindiotmenli ,fllr£herev,erll tl!a!' the ,accufled had in his possession a larlte pictures. and tl1at ,said letters were written and deposited in the mall int.ent to give -information cOncerning such pictures, and did in fact. , .· conve,:lIuch information. S. '.' ....,. . · ". . . ' In under.said seetion, whtire the letters complained of, to a casual reader, appear. to be hallDiIEllls, the go-retnment is entitled to allege and prove by evidence thattbey In fact give information concerning obscene picture·. , or llter"ture,I,lnd were so'intended.· . '8. , .... ,Th,JndiQtm'llt bad because it charges that letters addressed respectively . Huntress and William W. Waters were intended to and did convey infortnu;Uon to Robert W. McAfee where obscene pictures Could be obtained, since it .h' iU)possible nor improbable tl1atthe names Huntress and Watera wer& UIIumed name..
UNI1'ED STATES 4. BAJI[]I-,DECOY LETTERS.
GRDIlI. ,
529
The charged does not lose its criminal character though the letters were llent iii response to an inquiry made under an assumed name b'l a government official. 1I'ith a view of detecting the accused in the commission 0 an offense. since it does not appear that the 8CI1Ulled was solicited to use the mails and thus to commit an offense. ' , ,
At Law. Indictment against William Grimm for mailing lewd,lascivious, and obscene letters, in violation of Rev. St. U. S. § 3893. A demurrer to a former indictment was sustained on the ground of uncertainty 'in the allegations, (45 Fed. Rep. 558,) whereupon the defendant was reindicted. Verdict of guilty. The case is now heard on motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment. Overruled. The letters BS set out in the indictment were as follows: '''W:ar. PHOTOGRAPH N. E. COR. OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND OLIVE STREET. '
"ST. ,LoUIS. July 22. 1890· ·· Mr. Hu'ntress., Richmond-DEAR SIR: I received your letter this m,ornfng. I will. let you 'have them for $2,00 per doz. & $12.50 per 100. lhave about 200 negatives of actresses. ' " WM. "WM. GRIMM, PHOTOGRAPH AND ART STUDJO, N. E. COR. OF JEFFEUSON AVENUE AND OLIVE STREET. "ST. LOUIS. July 21.1890. "¥R. \VM;WA,TERS: Yours at han<l. the 21st. I will make them for $2.00 per doz. ,anll $12.,50 per 100. "Address: WM. GRIMM, N. E. Cor. Oliva and Jefferson. St. Louis, Mo. "r. Differtmtslsses;" . '
S:
It was alleged in the indictment, in substance, that at the time of depositing the letters in tbemail the defendant had in his possession a large number of lewd, lascivious, and obscene pictures; that the letters in question were written and deposited in the mail with intent to give information to one Robert McAfee where such pictures could be obtained, and that they did give such informatioll. (JeD. D. Reynolds, U. S. Atty. D. P. Dyer and Louis A. Steber, for defendant. THAYER, District Judge. The motions in arrest and for a new trial present three questions. 1. The first is whether the indictment is bad, because the letters set out in the indictment Bnd alleged to be nonmailable do not in themselves show with certainty that the pictures therein referred to are either lewd, lascivious, or obscene. This question was considered to some extent during thetrial, and has since been more carefully considered. The court decides the question in the negative. It holds that a letter is nonmailable if it in fact conveys; and was intended to convey, information to, any person where obscene pictures or literature may be obtained, even though to a casual reader it may seem hannless. The court further holt16 that in a prosecution ofthis character the government is not v.50F.no.7-34
630
FlIlDl!lRAL BEPOB'lBR"
:vohfiO.
",as in. to?onvey such mformatIOn. If the character of a letter abown by extrinsic facts, the statute under which this indictment is drawn oould be ,easily 'evaded and would. ptb1le ,a dead lette.lk:·' 2. The· tlext questiQn ·iswbether .the ,indictment is bad because it is allegedthat.the letters addressed to Herman Huntress aud William W. Wliterscenveyed.infortnatiC)n,andwete intended to gtveinformation, to one RObert'iW.MoAfee:wbere lewd could be obtained. This qu.estion·must. be decided, in the negative., fOr the reason that it is not that a letter.addressed to mt1:y givel},.and ,may have been intended to IPve mformafldtftoa was'McAfee. The letters may have been addressed to 'a person 'under an assumed name, and the proof :'triil.f'showed that such was the fact·. :McAfee had .tw,o, and in reply thereto lla:d. recei1l'ed' the two upon hl:the indictment, to Huntress and the 'other to cannot. be maintained that the mailing of a letter containing information asW'ofillcene n6tap offense because it is sent to a persOlltlnder an assumed name: U. Cottingliam, 2 Blatchf. 470. complained of-that is to say, 'thede'p'dSitJ trorirnilllJtble1letters 'In'the 'criminal charse,nt W. idtlie; of the post office department, m response to an mquuy made );>y ,tp.at person an assumed name, and for the purpose of detecting the defendant m the -eommission,df a'Ctime.I;This question must be aedded in the light of [without reference to the. other question' that has some.times ooeIlfdiBcussed,whether a person is ever justified in resorting, to artitialbl"\ deception for the purpose of discoveringorime. In view of whatseemBi tbbetheweightof authority/at the present time, the court is compelled to decide the question last stated in the negative.. If a letter gives information where obscene books or .pictures can be obtained, it is an offense to depositsQchft in the maihwitb intent to"give such information, and thereby to aid in the sale and distribution of such books'and, pictures, 'even thoughthec party addressed happens to be an official in the service of the government. And, .if: silohactis done voluntarily nndintentiona,Uy is' to, say, if the: nbnmailable letter is deposited in the 'rbail:b1' the accused without solicitation on the part of theoffioer tihnt <the mail be used,toconvey such intelligence,-,.the weight of judiaialJ opinion 'seems, to be tl;1at.the act does not.1ose its criminal character, tho.ugh!the offense ·may .have. been committed, in responding to aninquiry from ai peisoh in the government service which was made under 'name fotthe purpose of concealing his icientity. BateB v.U.;B., 10 Fed. Re.p.·92,,100j. U. S;v.,&U, 11 Blatchf. 346jPeople v.Noelke. 94JN.,¥.:l37, 142j EJ:rei8eC'om..v. Backus, 29 How. Pr,33. 39,42; U·. S.'v.J1,Date;:.19 Fed. Rep. 39;: U. S. v, Wight, 88 Fed. Rep.
of'
:681 108,1109, Uli'U,S,V. Dorsey, 40 Fed. Rep. 752; U. 8.v. Whittier, 5 Dill. 35, 39; U.8. v.' FaYe, 1 Curt. 364. It cannot b$ regarded as a '\I'alidexeuStdor a crime that some one has afforded the accused a convenient opportunity to cbmmit it, for the purpose of testing his honesty. Unfortunately it seems, to be necessary to apply such tests in order to suppress offenses of a certain class. In the case at bar the evidence did not sbow ,that the accused was solicited to commit the offense charged in tbe indictment. The selection of the public mail as the medium for giving information wberethe most lewd and indecent pictures could be obtained ,was the voluntary act of the defendant, and he is criminally responsibie therefor. The motions for 8 new trial and in arrest are therefore overruled. N. B. The judgment and sl.'l)tence in the foregoing case was imprisonment in the penitentiary of the state -of Missouri for and duringtbu &.enn Qt Qn. and unu day. to be kept at hard labur during said terw.
(cCrcuU
awn 0/ .Appeats. FOOIf'tJI, Circuit. No. "
],{a,.
95, 1891.)
L
Letters patent 843,3611, June 8, 1888, to CharI\¥' Ha1fcke, cover 'the com· bination in aretngerator of an ice bowl or rack in the upper part, with open bof,. tom formed of two sets of slats, tbe upper convex and the lower concave. so arranged tbat the latter catch and' carry 01f the drip, the ice bowl being detached from the sides of tbe refrigerator, so as to allow the free circulation of air, togetber with thin crates of salt seton ",dge near the ends and at the back of the chamber of the refrigerator, detacbed from the walls, and held by slats or woven wire, with open interstices, that allow tbe air coming directly down from the ice free circula.tion .through, the salt, producing an automatic circulation of cold, dryl saline af,. mosphere, having extraordinary and unprecedented efficacy in preservmg meats, etc., in BOund conditioD for IlnusUal periods of time. :HeW, that the invention ia novel and patentable. ' A patentee entered 'lnto partnersbip with another for a term of years, unless 100ner dIssolved by consent, for the purpose o! manufacturing the articleJ the patentee contributing the right to 'manufact.ure und,er his letters patent, ana the otber a SUID, in cash. Held, tbat on dissolution of the partnership the license expired, ,and the exclusive right t.o the vatent remained in thepI'tentlle. " 'Cl Fed. Rep. 170, l'tlversed. '
IWVBNTIONS-NoVBJ.TT-RBFBIGBRA.TOR8.
.. '&MB-LlotNsB TO P A.l\TlII'lIR81rtP-EFFllCT OJ' DJSSOLUTION.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Maryland. In Equity. , Suit by Charles Haflcke against Eugene P.Clark for infringement of claims 4,5, ,and 6 of letters patent No. 343,369, issued June 8, 1886, to complainant for an hnprovement in the artofrefrigeration. 'These held invalid ft;>r want of patentable novelty, and the bill dismissed. 46 Fed. Rep. 770. Plaintiff appeals. Reo 'Versed. ' The specification contaIns the following statements: "The thfrdpart of the to means for abRorblngmofstnre from the a.ir in. the fl"igetaMlg chamber, a"nd diffusing throughUilt th@ fWd