United States v. Jarvis

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Docket Number: 708.
• Citation: 59 F. 357
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. JARVIS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

59 F. 357

UNITED STATES v. JARVIS.

No. 708.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

January 16, 1894

Wm. H Brinker, U.S. Atty.

D. O Finch, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

The indictment contains several counts, each charging the defendant with having sent, by mail, a private sealed letter of an indecent character, in violation of the act of September 26, 1888, (1 Supp. Rev. St. [2d Ed.] 621.) In this case, as in the case of United States v. Warner, I hold that the offense is not indictable by reason of the indecent matter contained in the letter. The United States attorney claims, however, that by an allegation to the effect that upon the envelope of each letter there was written an epithet, to wit, the words 'The Notorious,' calculated and obviously intended to reflect injuriously upon the character of the person addressed, the case is brought within the first section of said statute, which reads as follows:

'That all matter otherwise mailable by law, upon the envelope or outside cover or wrapper of which, or any postal card upon which, any delineations, epithets, terms, or language of an indecent, lewd, lascivious, obscene, libelous scurrilous, defamatory or threatening character, or calculated by the terms or manner or style of display and obviously intended to reflect injuriously upon the character or conduct of another may be written or printed, or otherwise impressed or apparent, are hereby declared non-mailable matter; * * * and any person who shall knowingly deposit, or cause to be deposited, for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be non-mailable matter, * * * shall, for each and every offense, upon conviction thereof be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not more than five years or both, at the discretion of the court.'

The superscription upon the envelope, as set forth in the indictment, after the name of the person, is as follows 'Room 32, Pease House, Front St., City, The Notorious.' The epithet, although presumably offensive to the person addressed, is not per se indecent, scurrilous, or defamatory, nor of a threatening character, and the use of it, therefore, is not prohibited by the law, unless it is both calculated to reflect injuriously upon the character or conduct of a person, and obviously intended to have such injurious effect. The present inquiry may be limited to the simple...