United States v. Ried

• Decision Date: 05 April 1890
• Citation: 42 F. 134
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. RIED.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

42 F. 134

UNITED STATES v. RIED.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

April 5, 1890

L. G Palmer, U.S. Atty., and F. W. Stevens, Asst. U.S. Atty.

F. S Donaldson, L. V. Moulton, and Dennis L. Rogers, for defendant.

Defendant was indicted for a violation of section 5480 of the Revised Statutes. The testimony on the part of the government showed that defendant had for some time made use of the mails in sending out circulars and advertisements, of which the following is a sample:

'Dr. W. E. Ried, the Spirit Postmaster; or, how to obtain a sealed letter from your spirit friends. In the first place, take a moment's time to understand fully what a sealed letter consists of. If you are troubled about financial matters, sickness of any description, family troubles, or are undecided what to do about any special matter, think your matters over carefully, and then follow the directions given below implicitly, and your letter will receive prompt attention: First. Write the full name or names of your spirit friends on slips of paper. Second. Address them by terms of relationship or friendship. Third. Ask your question. Fourth. Sign your own name in full. When this is done, place your question in an ordinary envelope, and seal it. Write a few lines on another sheet of paper, giving instructions to whom the replies should be sent, and place your sealed letter and note of instructions in a larger one, and address, Dr. W. E. Ried, 28 Canal St., Grand Rapids; 'Personal' in one corner. Dr. Ried has answered several thousand letters during the past two years, and has been uniformly successful. Of course, there are cases where nothing can be obtained, and invariably the money will be refunded if no answer can be given. Fee for answering sealed letter, $1.00, if above directions are followed, and 6 cents extra for postage. If sewed in any manner, $5.00. If sealed with wax, $5.00.'

The government showed that in answer to such circulars and advertisements the defendant had received a large number of letters with the required fee inclosed. As bearing on the fraudulent character of the business, numerous statements of the defendant were shown tending to prove the business to be a fraud, as also evidence tending to show that some time previous to the dates alleged in the indictment defendant had acquired a knowledge of the 'trick' of opening a sealed letter by an exchange of 'tricks' with another person. The defense offered to show that in particular instances the defendant had satisfactorily answered sealed letters, by the testimony of persons sending them, and that the questions answered were of such a character that defendant could not have answered them except by supernatural power. This testimony was excluded, as not meeting the case made by the government, and as amounting merely to evidence of the opinions of others upon the merits of particular performances. The defendant's counsel also asked the privilege of allowing the defendant to give an exhibition or test of his power in open court. This was denied. The defendant was not sworn as a witness.

SEVERENS J.,

(charging jury.) The indictment in this case, in several counts charges what, for practical purposes, may be regarded as substantially the same offense. The substance of the charge is that the defendant, having contrived a scheme to defraud the public, employed the mails of the United States in the prosecution of that scheme. That, shortly stated, is the substance of the offense with which the defendant is charged. There is a statute of the United States upon which this indictment is framed, which, in effect, makes the use of the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, previously formed by the party so using the mails, an offense; the policy being to prevent the facilities afforded by our postal arrangements from being employed in uses which are prejudicial to the interests of the public. The defendant in this case founds his defense upon the claim, as urged by his counsel, that this was not a scheme to defraud. In order

...