United States v. Pupke

• Decision Date: 16 November 1904
• Citation: 133 F. 243
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. PUPKE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

133 F. 243

UNITED STATES v. PUPKE.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

November 16, 1904

David Patterson Dyer, U.S. Dist. Atty.

Chester H. Krum, for defendant.

ADAMS District Judge.

This is an indictment for a violation of the provisions of section 3893 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended by the act of September 26, 1888, c. 1039, Sec. 2, 25 Stat 496 (Supplement, vol. 1, p.621 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 2658)). The section as amended, so far as it is necessary for our present purpose, is as follows:

'Every article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception * * * 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 * * * articles or things may be obtained or made * * * are hereby declared to be non-mailable. * * * 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 be punished as provided in the act.

The accused is charged under this section, after appropriate averments of time and place, in the following language: 'Did then and there unlawfully and feloniously deposit and cause to be deposited (in the St. Louis post office for mailing and delivery) a certain letter and writing giving information to one Miss Effie Williams where, how, and of whom, and by what means, an article or thing designed and intended for the prevention of conception might be obtained.'

The letter is then set out, with appropriate averments as to the time of its mailing and its destination, but the letter in no wise states what the particular article or thing consisted of. It refers to the fact that the accused has inclosed to the addressee a copy of 'Our Hydro System.' The sufficiency of this indictment is challenged by demurrer, and the point made against it is that the pleader does not disclose what the particular 'article or thing' is, about which the defendant gave information to the addressee.

The language of the section in question, already set out, makes any 'article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception' nonmailable, and it is first made an offense against the United States to mail any 'such article or thing.' Suppose the indictment had charged the defendant with having mailed 'an article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception,' without any specification as to what that article or thing was. Could it be contended for a moment that the defendant was thereby duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, within the meaning of the constitutional guaranty to that effect? Could it be successfully contended that he was thereby so furnished with such a description of the charge against him as would enable him to make his defense, or avail himself of his conviction or...