Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-25
GRAND JURY TO SAY.
1t Gill Pass Upon the Letters Ia Olicer
Z. G. Lamkin'S Case.
MOTION TO DISMISS OyERRULED.
Counsel Argue the Question OF
Whether the Missivcs Involved
Were Such ms the Postal Law Eor-
bids-The Inspector Suspended.

bids-The Inspector Suspended.
The case OF sanitary-Inspector u. G..
Lamldn, charged with sending obscene
letters to Miss Lena Layne through the
United States mails. came up before
Commissioner McLain peasants yester-
day, and motion TO dismiss the case
made by Mr.. Lyons, Of counsel Tor the
defence. was overruled, after which the
latter waived further examination. so
that now the matter will come before the
grand jury Of the United States Court.
The United States District-Court room,
where the case was heard was crowded
with spectators. but If they came through
a curiosity to see the young lady who
makes the charges against the officer
and hear her testify they were disap-
pointed in both, as she was not present
Messrs. James Lyons, William Flegen-
heimer, and NJ. f. Maury appeared as
counsel for the defence. while District
Attorney L. L. Lassiter was present TO
represent the government Mr.. ID. c..
Richardson was present as a witness,
having known the accused for many
years.
THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
Mr.. Lyons's motion TO dismiss the case
was made upon the grounds that neither
the warrant nor the documentary eyi-
dence sustained the charge OF any Of
fence against the statutes Of the United
States. He was perfectly willing that the
five letters which were alleged 10 have
been written by Mr. Lamkin should be
flra Hnf nj
he said, denied having been the author
Of any of them. but Mr.. Lyons said he
would show by reading the letters that
none of them contained language that
was "obscene. lasciviOus, or lewd.' and
that the words used could not be
STRAINED" TO mean anything other than
the definition given TO them in the die
tonary. The five letters which Mr.
Lyons then read were ali Of similar
nature, calling on MISS Layne to explain
why she would not meet the writer Of
them. and asking her II she was not still
his friend TO let him know, and he would
annoy her no longer. Mr.. Lyons said
that from the character Of the letters
they might have been written by u
woman. He said there mad TO be an
offence committed before there could be
a defendant; that in the Hastings Court
they had to prove that there was a dead
body before they could try a man for
murder. and so in this case you would
have 70 show that there was an obscene
letter before you could charge a man
with being the author of it.
THE GOVERNMENTS SIDE.
Mr.. Lassiter made strong argument
for the prosecution. and held that letter
need not TEEN with filthy words" in
order TO be considered as violating the
statutes. II was the impression that the
letter was intended to convey 10 the per-
son TO whom ii was written that should
be considered, and what other view could
be taken Of a letter that offered TO pay
a woman what was 10 her a weeks salary
for one meeting than that the writer
desired 10 make TO her an immoral propO-
sition. II the sisters Of any Of those
present he asked. had received such a
letter, what would they think?
Mr. Flegenheimar made & brief argu-
ment for the defence going over the
same ground covered by Mr.. Lyons, hold
ing that there was nothing in the words
used in the letters that could be con-
sidered as obscene. lasciyiOus, or lewd."
Commissioner Peasants then gave his
decision in a few words He said that
the case turned upon the word obscene"
IF obscene means" said he. that which
Is offensive to chastity or modesty Ohe
definition given by counsel for defence,
it brings this letter within the purview
of the statute" lie oyerruied the de-
murrer.
Mr. Lyons then said that he would
waive further examination. as the same
question would come before the court.
and the case was certified TO the grand
jury:
Mr. Lamkins bail bond, furnished by
T.. c. Mayo. in the sum of A.Oc0. was
renewed
Mr.. Lamkin did not appear in his uni
form yesterday. having been suspended
from duty pending the investigation OF the
charges against him.
LETTERS IN THE CASE.
Should the grand jury indict officer
I.amkin, the first question to be passed
upon by the Court will be that raised
before the Commissioner yesterday
whether the letters addressed to Miss
Layne are such az the law prohibits lc-
ing sent through the mails. The Sanitary
lns pector insists that he had nothing
whatever TO do with sending the letters.
and his counsel contend that even If he
had written. signed, and sent them, they
constitute no offence against the postal
laws.
There are, as has been stated, five Of
the letters. They are short. and all are
NIlkAfH Oil fhl'if NNNNRN Ni4Nf NAlN4i
is on a business or official sheet, the
head of which is torn OF. This stationery
appears 10 have been furnished by Fer
gusson & Sons. and the note-head seems
10 have been in red ink.
URGES HER TO COME.
The most important letter in the lot
which the Federal authorities indicate as
No. 3. but which seems to have been the
first one written, being post-marked
Richmond, Va, March H. 1885," is ss
follows:
Saturday Night.
Miss Lena.-I went at 7:i5 o'clock TO
Twentieth and Marshall and waited un-
til S and after. Now. If you intend 10 be
a friend. you meet me at 4 o'clock Monday
at Fourteenth and Broad for this is the
last time l shall ask you. l don't want to
be fooled again. II you want boys In
stead Of my friendship. that is all right
You comes If you have 10 stay home
from work, you shall be paid for the
weeks time. Come, sure; this is the last
time 1 will ask you.
YOUR FRIEND.
The following postscript was at the
bottom and top OF the eplstle: Monday.
18th. II. NJ: Fourteenth and Broad.
II you don't get this in time 10 answer,
come. | will be at place. anyway" In
the letter was a directed envelope, the
address being "Mr. A. Goodfellow. care
r. B. Williams. corner Twenty-first and
Marshall streets, city" Mr.. Williams Is
a druggist at the corner named.
What is marked in the batch as No. 2,
reads:
Monday. $50 p. NJ.
Miss Lena,-Why did you fail TO meet
me. as you promised? See me Tuesday at
one and half at corner 25d Grace, and
explain TO me. YOUR FRIEND"
LETTER NO. 8.
The third letter, which is In an en-
,trelv dffferanf handwriting from tha