Sales v. United States
| Citation | 258 F. 597 |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | 5207. |
| Parties | SALES v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
W. B Dickinson, of Buffalo, N.Y., for plaintiff in error.
Sam O Hargus, Asst. U.S. atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Francis M Wilson, U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of mailing an 'obscene lascivious, and filthy' letter, contrary to section 211 of the Criminal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1129 (Comp. St. Sec. 10381)), and brings the case here for review.
The letter need not be set forth. The trial court charged the jury that 'it is not contended that the letter contains in itself filthy or indecent terms or expressions'; that they need not be confused if, upon examining it in the jury room, they would say, 'I don't see anything dirty or filthy about that'; also that the question was of its general intendment and purpose. But in discussing 'purpose' and 'motive' the court did not confine the jury to the letter, but expressed itself so broadly that it left them at liberty to convict for an undisclosed, unexpressed intent in the mind of the accused, and we think it not unlikely that the verdict came the latter way. The door was open for the jury to draw an inference that there was an ulterior purpose in the mind of the accused, which brought him within the law, regardless of the language of the letter.
It is not enough that a letter or publication be offensive to the feelings or the pride of those into whose hands it may come. Considerations of caste or social position do not enter into the law. The evil character of the letter or publication declared nonmailable by the clause of the statute under consideration must be reasonably apparent or discernible on its face. It need not be in particular words, but may appear in the structure of the sentences, and either directly or indirectly by innuendo or suggestion, or in the thought conveyed. Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486, 17 Sup.Ct. 375, 41 L.Ed. 799, involved newspaper publications of the latter character. Instances of suggestive letters held to offend the statute may be found in Parish v. United States, 159 C.C.A. 258, 247 F. 40, and United States v. Moore (D.C.) 129 F. 159. We approve of those decisions. But we know of no case under this clause of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., 1755-Y.
...v. United States, 1897, 165 U.S. 486, 17 S.Ct. 375, 41 L.Ed. 799; Botsford v. United States, 6 Cir., 1914, 215 F. 510; Sales v. United States, 8 Cir., 1919, 258 F. 597; United States v. One Book Ulysses, 2 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 705; United States v. Levine, 2 Cir., 1936, 83 F.2d 156 See Posta......
-
United States v. Watson
...but written for an indecent purpose, an indictment founded only upon the obscene purpose cannot be maintained. Ibid27 In Sales v. United States (8 Cir. 1919) 258 F. 597, the Eighth Circuit reversed a conviction obtained in this Court. It was clear from Judge Van Valkenburgh's charge that th......
-
Krause v. United States
...S., 272 U. S. 655, 47 S. Ct. 234, 71 L. Ed. 461; U. S. v. Lamkin (C. C.) 73 F. 459; Knowles v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 170 F. 409; Sales v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 258 F. 597, 598. In U. S. v. Lamkin, supra, Judge Hughes, while indicating that the letters in question may have been intended for a grossly ......
-
Williams v. Edward Gillen Dock, Dredge & Construction Co.
...258 F. 591 WILLIAMS v. EDWARD GILLEN DOCK, DREDGE & CONSTRUCTION CO. No. 3256.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.June 30, 1919 [258 F. 592] ... S. H ... ...