Swearingen v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 March 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 567,567 |
| Citation | 40 L.Ed. 765,161 U.S. 446,16 S.Ct. 562 |
| Parties | SWEARINGEN v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 446-448 intentionally omitted] J. D. McCleverty, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The record discloses that the defendant below was, in the month of September, 1894, the editor and publisher of a newspaper called 'The Burlington Courier,' and was indicted for having mailed several copies of the paper, containing the article set forth in the previous statement, addressed to different persons.
The bill of exceptions shows that, at the trial, the government offered the article in question in evidence, and that the defendant objected, for the reasons that no public offense was stated in the indictment, that there was a misjoinder of offenses, and that the words of said newspaper article did not constitute unmailable matter. These objections were overruled, and an exception was allowed. The article was then read to the jury, and evidence was offered and received tending to show that on September 21, 1894, copies of the newspaper containing the said article were mailed by employees of the defendant, addressed severally to Riggs, Cowgill, and Lane, who were regular subscribers to the paper, and whose names were on the mail list. The defendant, on the ground of its insufficiency, moved to strike out the evidence as to the mailing of any paper to Lane or Cowgill. This motion was overruled, as was likewise a motion to compel the district attorney to elect upon which count of the indictment he would rely. The defendant offered no evidence, and the court charged the jury that the newspaper article in evidence, which the defendant admitted he published, was obscene and unmailable matter, and that the only thing for the jury to pass upon was whether the evidence satisfied them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant deposited, or caused to be deposited, in the post office at Burlington, Kan., newspapers containing said article. To the rulings of the court overruling the motions, and to the charge, exceptions were taken and allowed.
As we think that the court erred in charging the jury that the newspaper article in question was obscene and unmailable matter, it will not be necessary for us to consider the merits of those assignments which allege error in the admission of evidence.
This porsecution was brought under section 3893 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that 'every obscene, lewd or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, paper, writing, or other publication of an indecent character * * * are hereby declared to be non-mailable matter, and shall not be conveyed in the mails, nor delivered from any post office, nor by any letter carrier; and any person who shall knowingly deposit or cause to be deposited,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Gordon
...contain obscene matter. This is now true in all jurisdictions that have dealt with the subject: the Federal courts, Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446 (1896); United States v. Ulysses, 72 F.2d 705 Walker v. Popenoe, 149 F.2d 511 (1945); Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Isenstadt, 318 M......
-
Northern Securities Company v. United States
...2 Story, 213, Fed. Cas. No. 381; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 396, 18 L. ed. 830, 832; Swearingen v. United States, 161 U. S. 446, 451, 40 L. ed. 765, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 562; France v. United States, 164 U. S. 676, 682, 41 L. ed. 595, 597, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219; The Paulina v. Unite......
-
Roth v. United States Alberts v. State of California
...U.S. 604, 15 S.Ct. 470, 39 L.Ed. 550; Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 16 S.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 16 S.Ct. 562, 40 L.Ed. 799; Andrews v. United States, 162 U.S. 420, 16 S.Ct. 798, 40 L.Ed. 1023; Price v. United States, 165 U.S. 311, 17 S.......
-
Hoffman v. Palmer
...creating it, resort may be had to the common law for the purpose of arriving at the meaning of the word. Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 451, 16 S.Ct. 562 40 L.Ed. 765; United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456 42 L.Ed. In a given context, words often come to have......
-
Anti-Obscenity: A Comparison of the Legal and the Feminist Perspectives
...under heavy criticism, as inUnited States v. Kennerly, 209 F. 119, 120 (1913), and has since been abandoned.8 Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, 451 (1895).9Burton v. United States, 142 F. 57, 63 (1906).10People v. Berg, 272 N.Y. Supp. 585, 588 (1934).11Roth v. United States, 354 U.......