The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-03-22
JOE WAS REAL NAUGHTY
A Jury Of Mr. WenrlCh'S Peers Have
Said l..
The COURT WILL PUNISH
He Has Been found Guilty of Pub
fishing and Sending Through
the Mails Obscene and
Nasty Matter.
THE COURT WILL PUNISH

The verdict of the jury in the United
states court that tried Joseph p. Wen
-Ich, publisher of the Sunday Mercury.
N'id formerly publisher of The People, on
the charge of sending obscene and in
dece mt matter through the mail.
The case was called for trial at 10
O'Clock this morning and the verdict was
reached by II o'clock, as very little testi-
mony was introduced.
The case was opened by Assistant
United States Attorney Shelton, who read
the indictment TO the jury and said the
testimony would show that on Aug. 26,
1884, several copies of The People were de-
posted in the postofiice at Butte, one of
which papers was addressed 10 the MIS-
soutdin at Missoula. He said the paper
would be offered in evidence and would
show for itself that il was obscene and in
decent and unfit to be sent through the
United States mails.
L. Is. Beicher, mailing clerk at the Butte
postofiice, was the first witness for the
government and testified that he handled
n package of The People addressed TO
Missoula.
The witness was asked if in the package
there was a paper addressed to the Mis-
souttdn, and Mr.. Brooks objected to the
testimony on the ground that the indic,-
dressed to the Missoulidn, but the court
ruled that tho variance was Immaterial.
On cross-eXamination Belcher sail lie
had been instructed by the postmaster
and postofiice inspector to look out for
the papers when they were mailed and he
saw boy, Thomas Hosty, bring the pack
age and he asked him his name and
marked the papers.
Hosty was the next witness and testi-
fled that he had mailed a lot of papers
Tor Wenrich, but could not tell what pa
pers they we're nor identify the particular
packages complained of. Sometimes
Wenrich requested him to mail the pa
and at other times he mailed them with
out being requested to do so.
Phil Carr, mailing clerk at the Butte
postoflice, testified that he was familiar
with WenTich's handwriting, ank that the
address on the paper III evidence looked
like his writing, but tine witness was not
sure that 1t was. Carr said he understood
that Wenrich had been the publisher of
The People, but did not know SO OF his
own knowledge. .,.
Thomas j. Flavin, assistant postmaster,
said the paper had been entered as Sec
ond class mail matter at the Suite post
office but he did not know who made APP
pilcation TO have it so'entered. On cross
examination the witness said a copy OF
the paper was sent to the department at
Washington and passed on by the de-
partment before the permit was issued.
The prosecuting attorney offered In evil
dence the copy of the paper referred to in
the Indictment, TO which Mr.. Brooks OBJ
jected OIL the ground that there had been
no evidence connecting the defendant
with the publication or mailing of the
paper. The court overruled the objection |
and Mr.. Shelton read several columns
from the paper, under the heading of "In |
The Social Swim ~ the items of w uaro |
in the nature of queries, the majority of |
which we're harmless enough though |
there were a few that could have been |
construed into an obscene meaning.
The defendant was next put on the |
stand and admitted that he had been the
publisher of the People and that its char
acter OIL Aug. 20 was the same as when he |
submitted a copy TO the postoffice depart
ment. He said he always tried to keep
out OF the paper everything of an obscene
nature, but that sometimes objectionable
matter got in because ii escaped his OBJ
servation. He also said that he had |
changed the name of the People to the
Sunday Mercury and that the latter was
not sent through the postoffice.
The testimony of the defendant was all
that was offered for the defense and Mr..
Shelton opened the arguments to the jury.
lie said IT was for the jury to decide
whether or not the character of the paper
was obscene and indecent and to saw if |
see circulated among their friends and
families. He read the statute under
which the indictment was found which
fixed the penalty, on conviction, at a fine
not to exceed 5000 or Imprisonment in
The penitentiary for term not to exceed |
five years, or both.
Mr.. Brooks in his argument contended
that the paper was not obscene to a pure
mind though II might contain some things
that were a little coarse. He referred to
10 traa IL. l.
lis 4d in the paper and said they should be
taken into consideration in determining
the character of the publication. 1t was
no otfense against the government TO pub
lish the papers and IL was simply charged
that the defendant had knowingly depos:-
ted or caused it to be deposited in the
postcfIice. Mr.. Wenrich, he said, had
murdered no one. but had simply violated
a rule of the United States.
Mr.. Shelton, in reply, called attention
TO the penalty and said that 50 900 and five
years was the limit, but that the jury
could fix the punishment as low as a fine
of S1.00.
Judge Knowles in his instructions 10 tho
jury defined the meaning of the word in
decent as used in the Indictment to be
offensive to modesty and delicacy." and
The word lewd as applied TO the publica-
ion TO be that the latter ''treated of I'M
lawful cohabitaiion."
The jury were out about n quarter of an |
hour and returned. as stated, with n YER
lict of guilty. Tho jury was composed of |
\. w. Barnard, W. II. Eddy, y. Jubinville,
w. Barrett, ;. Ayotte, j. J. Haggerty,
simon Houswirh, Z. L. Reber. o. X
Lewis. Oswald Fayram, George W. New
Kirk and W. Noyes.
The court discharged the jury and fixed
morning as the time for pass
ng sentence.
A jury in the United States court cam
lot fix the punishment and can only
recommend mercy. Ii il had been in the
power of the jury the defendant would
have been given the lowest
possible sentence. One of the jurors
stated after the trial that they all favored
, mammal fine.