Ackley v. United States, 3,740.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Citation | 200 F. 217 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1912 |
| Docket Number | 3,740. |
| Parties | ACKLEY v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
200 F. 217
ACKLEY
v.
UNITED STATES. [1]
No. 3,740.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
October 14, 1912
[200 F. 218] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [200 F. 219]
W. W. Calvin, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Leslie J. Lyons, U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Hugh C. Smith and Thad. B. Landon, Asst. U.S. Attys., both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and McPHERSON, District judge.
SMITH McPHERSON, District Judge.
The plaintiff in error, Foster E. Ackley, was indicted for furnishing information where and from whom articles could be obtained which would prevent conception. The indictment was in four counts; trial resulting in acquittals under all but the second count. The second count charges that the defendant for many years had been a practicing physician at Kansas City, Mo., advertising his profession in the papers of that city, which circulated in various parts of the country. George A. Leonard, a post office inspector, caused to be sent to the defendant at his business address in Kansas City, by means of the United States mail, posted in Arkansas City, Kan., a letter of date December 5, 1910, purporting to have been written by Mary Eichenoner. After stating that the writer had seen his advertisements the letter recites:
'I am writing you to know whether you have a remedy that will keep me from getting in a family way. If you have such a remedy or can tell me where to get it I will be very grateful to you. Please send your reply in a plain envelope
'Yours truly,
Mary Eichenoner.'
Two days thereafter, at Kansas City, Mo., the defendant, in response to the letter referred to, deposited in the United States post [200 F. 220] office at Kansas City, Mo., for mailing and delivery through the post office establishment of the United States, an envelope, addressed to the said Mary Eichenoner at Arkansas City, Kan., which envelope contained a printed book or pamphlet and advertisements describing the 'Ackley Ladies' Syringe' and 'Dr. Ackley's Sanitary Powder.' This pamphlet has a picture of a woman standing by a door, as if about to open the same, above which is printed in large letters, 'The Door to Health,' and below it the words:
'Open It. Dr. F. E. Ackley, the Woman's Doctor, 318 Junction Building, Kansas City, Mo.'
On the back of the pamphlet is a picture of an image, entitled 'Billiken-- the god of things as they ought to be. ' Below this image are the words:
'A new lease of life is granted to womankind who use the Ackley Ladies' Syringe and Dr. Ackley's Sanitary Powder.'
This count also charges that February 20, 1911, the said Leonard, post office inspector, did address another letter at Arkansas City, Kan., requesting further information as to where, how, and from whom, and by what means articles and things designed, adapted, and intended for the preventing of conception might be obtained. This letter is as follows:
'Arkansas City, Kansas, Feb. 20, 1911.
'Dr. Ackley, Kansas City, Mo.-- Dear Doctor: In December I wrote to you to get a remedy that would keep me from getting in a family way, and your reply was to send me a little book describing a syringe and some powders. Now which of these you think is best for that use I don't know, I am sure, but am sending you a money order for $3.50 to pay for the syringe, but if you have any other remedy that is better than the syringe, send me $3.50 worth of that.
'Yours truly,
Mary Eichenoner, 'R.F.D. No. 6.'
The indictment further alleges that February 27, 1911, at Kansas City, Mo., defendant deposited in the United States post office another letter addressed to the said Mary Eichenoner, Arkansas City, Kan., which letter is as follows:
'Dr. F. E. Ackley, Diseases of Women, 318 Junction Building, Kansas City, Mo.
Feb. 27, 1911.
'Mary Eichenoner, Arkansas City, Kansas-- Dear Madame: In reply to your favor of the 20th, enclosing remittance of $3.50, will say that I am sending to your address, by to-day's Pacific Express Company, one of my patented ladies' syringes, as per your request. In the package sent I enclosed two sample packages of my Sanitary Powder, which I will kindly ask you to try and I am confident that you will be more than pleased with the results. You will find directions on the small packages as to how to use this powder. Only instead of following the directions as given on the package, I want you to use a teaspoonful of the powder to 8 oz. or one-half pint of water (which is the amount the bulb of my syringe will hold), instead of one quart of water as directed on the package. The directions on the packages are intended for use when my powder is used with some other kind of syringe besides my own. Study directions for use of my syringe thoroughly and by so doing you will find it very simple and easy [200 F. 221] to understand.
Should you desire the powder I can send it to you by mail at any time. The large full size boxes cost $1.00 each.
'Very truly yours,
(Signed) Dr. F. E. Ackley.'
In addition there was an allegation that defendant did by such circular and letter carried through the mails furnish information where a prevention against conception could be procured. But much of the indictment we omit as not being material. The defendant filed against the indictment a demurrer, and likewise a motion in arrest of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Roth, No. 387
...v. United States, supra, 161 U.S. 29, 42, 16 S.Ct. 434, 438, 480, and has been usual at least ever since. Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217, 222. In no 237 F.2d 801 event was there any improper entrapment. See United States v. Masciale, 2 Cir., 236 F.2d 601. The government's summa......
-
Mellor v. United States, No. 13349
...has long been recognized. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 160 F.2d 761 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217; O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F.2d 322; Wolpa v. United States, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 35; Pines v. United States, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 825; Pri......
-
Troutman v. United States, No. 1671
...prove any one or more of the charges. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L. Ed. 1097; Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 229 F. 940; Dell Aira v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 102; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124......
-
Madsen v. United States, No. 3490.
...960. 8 O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F. 2d 322; Poffenbarger v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 42; Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217; Troutman v. United States, 10 Cir., 100 F.2d 628; Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283; Mellor v. United States, 8 Cir., 160 F.2d 75......
-
United States v. Roth, 387
...v. United States, supra, 161 U.S. 29, 42, 16 S.Ct. 434, 438, 480, and has been usual at least ever since. Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217, 222. In no 237 F.2d 801 event was there any improper entrapment. See United States v. Masciale, 2 Cir., 236 F.2d 601. The government's summa......
-
Troutman v. United States, 1671
...prove any one or more of the charges. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L. Ed. 1097; Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 229 F. 940; Dell Aira v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 102; Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124......
-
Mellor v. United States, 13349
...has long been recognized. Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 S.Ct. 160 F.2d 761 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217; O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F.2d 322; Wolpa v. United States, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 35; Pines v. United States, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 825; Pri......
-
Madsen v. United States, 3490.
...960. 8 O'Neill v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F. 2d 322; Poffenbarger v. United States, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 42; Ackley v. United States, 8 Cir., 200 F. 217; Troutman v. United States, 10 Cir., 100 F.2d 628; Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283; Mellor v. United States, 8 Cir., 160 F.2d 75......