
    UNITED STATES v. SIMMONS.
    
    (District Court, D. Connecticut.
    May 3, 1894.)
    Post Office—Nonmailable Matter—Postal Cards Reflecting Injuriously on the Character of Another.
    Postal cards containing such allegations as “You have promised, and do not perform,” and, “I see, very plainly, you do not intend to pay any attention to my letters, or your agreements,” are nonmailable matter, within 25 Stat. 496, prohibiting the mailing- of a postal card, etc., which contains language obviously intended to reflect injuriously on the character or conduct of the person to whom it is addressed.
    This was au indictment in three counts, under the act of September 26, 1888 (25 Stat. 496), for depositing postal cards of an alleged nonmailable character in the mails. The postal cards in question were each mailed at West Winsted, Conn., by the defendant, who was a collection attorney, to one C. H. Cables, who was a house carpenter, whose home was also at West Winsted, but who was employed at his trade, also, in the adjoining towns, wherever work offered, and were as follows, viz.:
    C. H. Cables, Esq., Southington, Conn.:
    Jan. 13, 1893.
    Why do I not hear from you? I see, plainly, I shall be obliged to press this matter. I must heai from you by Wednesday night. Shall wait no longer.
    Respt, John E. Simmons.
    C. H. Cables, Esq., Southington Conn.:
    West Winsted, Gt., July 11, 1893.
    Why do you not let me Enow what you intend to do about balance due S. T. Dicherman? I want it settled, in some way, soon. You have promised, but do not perform. Let me hear from you without delay.
    Respt., John E. Simmons.
    C. H. Cables, Esq., Terryville, Conn.:
    West Winsted, Ct., Nov. 7, 1893.
    I see, very plainly, that you do not intend to pay any attention to my letters, or your agreements. I propose to get Bal. due on that claim. I shall wait no longer, but will see what can be done.
    Respt., John E. Simmons.
    Geo. P. McLean, for the United States.
    L. E. Stanton, for defendant.
    
      
       Reported by B. E. Marvin.
    
   After argument, the court, TOWNSEND, District Judge, held that the language used on the postals was not of such a “threatening character” as to be within the first paragraph of the statute as to such language, but that the expression in the latter postal card “I see * * * you do not intend to pay any attention to * * * your agreements,” was obviously intended to reflect upon the character and conduct of the person addressed, and was therefore within the last paragraph of the statute. The demurrer was therefore overruled.  