United States v. Fuller

• Decision Date: 02 March 1896
• Docket Number: 4,055.
• Citation: 72 F. 771
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. FULLER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

72 F. 771

UNITED STATES v. FULLER.

No. 4,055.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

March 2, 1896

Daniel R. Murphy, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Charles J. Schnabel, Asst U.S. Atty., for the United States.

M. L Pipes, for defendant.

BELLINGER District Judge.

The indictment in this case is under section 3893, Rev. St., and charges that the defendant did knowingly deposit in the post office at Albany, for mailing and delivery, a certain envelope, bearing the address, etc., 'which envelope then and there contained a certain obscene, lewd, and lascivious paper, writing, print, and publication, of an indecent character, which said paper, writing, print, and publication is so obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent that the same would be offensive to the court, and improper to be placed upon the records thereof. Wherefore the grand jurors do not set forth the same in this indictment. ' A second count charges another like offense, in the same language. To this indictment there is a demurrer upon the ground, among others that the obscene paper mentioned in each of the counts is not sufficiently described or identified to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, or so that the judgment in this case would be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.

In U.S. v. Harmon, 34 F. 872, there was an indictment under this same section of the Revised Statutes, in which the defendant was charged with mailing 'a certain obscene lewd, and lascivious paper and publication, of an indecent character, called 'Lucifer," which paper, it was alleged, was 'so obscene, lewd, and lascivious as to dispense with the incorporation of the words and figures in this indictment. ' The court held that the identification of the obscene paper was insufficient and sustained a demurrer to the indictment. In passing upon the question the court says:

'The accused are entitled to be informed of the specific charge made against them, and it must be sufficiently explicit and definite to enable them to prepare their defense and present their evidence, and, further, to enable them, in any future prosecution for the same offense, to make the plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. * * * It is not sufficient for the grand jury to allege that the contents of the paper are too obscene to be spread upon the records, and omit every means of identification. Surely, the objectionable matter can be described or

...