Fraud Order

A name given to orders Issued by the post-master general, under R. S. §§ 3929, 4041, for preventing the use of the mails as an agency for conducting schemes for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretences, etc. They are not restricted to schemes which lack all the elements of legitimate business, but the statute applies “when a business, even if otherwise legitimate, is systematically and designedly conducted upon the plan of inducing its patrons by means of false representations to part with their money in the belief that they are purchasing something different from, superior to, and worth more than, what is actually sold;” Harris v. Rosenberger, 146 Fed. 449, 16 C. O. A. 225, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762. The fraud order is issued to the post-master of the office through which the person affected by it receives his mail. It forbids the post-master to pay any postal money order to the specified person, and instructs the postmaster to return all letters to the senders if practicable, or If not, to the dead letter office, stamped in either case with the word “fraudulent.” The method of testing the validity of the fraud order is to apply to the federal court for an Injunction to restrain the post-master from executing it. The decision of the postmaster-general is not the exercise of a judicial function; if he' exceeds his jurisdiction, the party Injured may have relief in equity; Degge v. Hitchcock, 229 U. S. 162, 33 Sup. Ct. 639, 67 L. Ed.. Fraud orders have been sustained in the case of persons claiming by advertisement to be distillers, but being in fact mere middlemen and falsely advertising whisky as of a certain age; Harris v. Rosenberger, 145 Fed. 449, 16 C. C. A. 225, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762; in selling a medicine whose Ingredients and curative properties were grossly misrepresented; Missouri Drug Co. v. "Wyman, 129 Fed. 623; the advertisement of a sale of Instructions and materials for making artificial flowers which falsely represented that steady employment would be given to the purchasers in making and selling the same; Fairfield Floral Co. v. Bradbury, 89 Fed. 393; but where the advertisement was that of a corporation assuming to heal disease through the influence of the mind, it was held that the effectiveness of ^uch treatment was a mere matter of opinion and not within the statutes, which were intended to cover cases of fraud in fact only; American School of Mag-