United States v. Adams

Decision Date19 January 1894
Docket Number3,589.
Citation59 F. 674
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ADAMS.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

Daniel R. Murphy, U.S. Atty.

Henry E. McGinn, for defendant.

BELLINGER District Judge.

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with having on the 26th day of August, 1893, unlawfully deposited in the United States mails----

'A certain written letter, for mailing and delivery to E. May Dunkirk, Albany, Oregon; said letter containing information, directly, how, of whom, and by what means, a certain article and thing, designed and intended for the prevention of conception, might be obtained.'

The indictment is found under section 3893 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provides as follows:

'Every obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character, and every article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion * * * and every written or printed card, letter circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the hereinbefore mentioned matters, articles or things may be obtained or made, whether sealed as first class matter or not, are hereby declared to be non-mailable matter.'

To knowingly deposit, or cause to be deposited, any nonmailable matter, for mailing, is made a crime by this section.

The case is submitted to the court without a jury, by stipulation of the attorney of the United States and the attorney for the defendant, upon the following agreed facts:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that on or about the 26th day of August, 1893, one H P. Thrall assumed the name of 'E. May Dunkirk,' and wrote to the defendant, Mrs. C. J. Adams, a letter under said name of 'E. May Dunkirk,' and addressed to room 4 Hibernian building, 6th and Washington, Portland, Or., and sent said letter to Mrs. C. J. Adams through the United States mails, said letter being in words and figures the same as set up in the indictment herein: that thereafter he received a reply to said letter, which was handed to him, opened, by F. A. Schoppe, and that thereafter and thereupon he called upon the defendant, Mrs. C. J. Adams, and she admitted to said Thrall that she had written the letter dated August 26th, and addressed to 'E. May Dunkirk, Albany, Oregon,' and signed 'M. M. E. Bachalt,' said letter being handed to said Thrall by said Schoppe, being the letter set up in the indictment herein, and that thereupon he entered into a conversation with said Mrs. C. J. Adams relative to the purchase of the article or thing described in said two letters above described, and she agreed to sell him said article or thing for the price of $3.00 in case he, said Thrall, would give her the assurance that he was a married man. That said letter was sent by said Thrall to room 4, Hibernian building, in pursuance to the advice of the U.S. attorney for Oregon. It is further stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the letter described in the indictment as having been written by Miss E. May Dunkirk at Albany, Or., was in fact written by N. P. Thrall, who then was and still is a postal inspector of the government of the United States, and that in all the acts which the said Thrall did he was acting for the U.S. government; that, by and with the consent of the U.S. postal officers, the said letter purporting to have been written by E. May Dunkirk was inclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as in the indictment described, having a two-cent postage stamp upon the face, and was postmarked 'Albany, Or., August ___, 1893;' that said letter was not mailed as postmarked at Albany, Or., but was postmarked at Portland, Or., with a marking stamp furnished said Thrall by the secret service of the United States post-office department; that said postmark was affixed by the said Thrall with the marking stamp so furnished him in the presence of, and with the consent of, the said officers of the United States government; that thereupon said letter in said envelope, so sealed, postmarked, addressed, stamped, was by the said Thrall delivered to the officers of the Portland, Or., post office, and by them placed in the mail, and was delivered to room 4, Hibernian building, at Portland, Or., by a letter carrier from the Portland, Or., post office, said room 4 being the office where the defendant was an office as a manicure and chiropodist, and the same was there received by a person having charge of said office. It is further stipulated that the letter charged in the indictment as having been written in reply to said letter of Miss E. May Dunkirk by the defendant was by the defendant deposited, or caused to be deposited, in the Portland, Or., post office, and the same was never sent to Albany, Or., or delivered to E. May Dunkirk, but said letter was taken out of the Portland post office, at Portland, Or., by the said Thrall, or by the United States post officers acting for the government, for the purpose, singly and solely, of procuring information, and detecting and ascertaining if the defendant was knowingly depositing, or causing to be deposited, nonmailable matter in the U.S. mails; that there is no such person as E. May Dunkirk; that E. May Dunkirk is a fictitious person, having no existence, and, had said letter gone to Albany, Or., it could not have been there
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Sorrells v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1932
    ...10 F. 92, 97—99. 3 Compare Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, 66 A.L.R. 376. 4 See, also, United States v. Adams (D.C.) 59 F. 674; Sam Yick v. United States (C.C.A.) 240 F. 60, 65; United States v. Echols (D.C.) 253 F. 862; Peterson v. United States (C.C.A.......
  • People v. Sinclair
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1972
    ...see People v. McCord, 76 Mich. 200, 205--206, 42 N.W. 1106 (1889); People v. Pinkerton, 79 Mich. 110, 44 N.W. 180 (1889); United States v. Adams, 59 F. 674 (D.Or.1894); Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F. 412, 415 (CA 9, 1915); Butts v. United States, 273 F. 35, 37--38 (CA 8, 1921); State v. N......
  • State v. White
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1921
    ...P. 840; United States v. Whittier, 5 Dill. 35, F. Cas. No. 16,688; United States v. Matthews, 35 F. 890, 891, 1 L. R. A. 104; United States v. Adams, 59 F. 674; Saunders People, 38 Mich. 218.) Roy L. Black, Attorney General, and Alfred F. Stone and James L. Boone, Assistants, for Respondent......
  • The State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1913
    ... ... People, 33 P. 159; Speiden v ... State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 156, 30 Am. Rep. 126; United ... States v. Matthews, 35 F. 890; United States v ... Adams, 59 F. 674; State v. Jansen, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT