The times., 1897-05-28
Telemaque Timayenis Accused Of
Misusing the Mails.
He ANSWERS NOT GUILTY
Lawyer Ralston, for the Defense,
Contends That the Statutes Do
Not Cover the Alleged Obscene
Letters s-Overruied by the Court
and Placed in Evidence.


Tclemaque T. Timayenis, the well-known
Greek historian, playwright, and author OF
many works of fiction and romance, who
was arraigned before Chief Justice Bing-
ham on an Indictment found against him
at the January term for sending through
| the mails two alleged obscene letters,
dated, respectively, September II and Is
last. addressed, one to S. VIasto and the
other to Solon j. vlasto, 2 and A Stone
street, New York city.
TIE letters were received by Demetrius
| ylasto, an importer and brother of the
addrcssee, and opened by him and later
| sent to the General Postoffice Department,
| with the request that the writer be prose
cuted Mr.. Timayenis was tnen In this
| city directing the production OF the tragedy
..In Search OF Happiness" being pia yed
| by Robert Downing and Eugenia Blair
The matter was placed In the hands OF
District Attorney Birney, who caused the
| arrest OF Mr. Timayenis. He was arraigned
| before United States Commissioner Mills
and was held in $500 bonds for the action
| Of the grand jury.
At the January term he was indicted
| upon two counts and his trial set for Wed
| nesday last, but on account OF another case
that occupied the attention OF the court
| that day the trial went over until yester lay
Promptly at 1890 O'Clock Mr.. Tina
yenis entered the court with his counsel
| and several Of his countrymen All the
| witnesses for the prosecution answered to
| their names, being Messrs James L. Hell
| and Henry L. Thomas, of the Postoffice
1t-g.. W
main witness for the Government The
prosecution was represented by Assist
ant District Attorneys Joseph Shillingtun
aud John E. Laskey and the defense was
looked after by Messrs. j. II. Ralston and
F. L. Siddons. The taiesmen were duly
sworn and accepted 10y the defense with
one exception, MI W. Fl. A. Wormley,
who was challenged and substituted By
Mr. L. j. Fletcher, after which the toll
lowing Jury was selected:
william Clements, Leopold Gradwell.
William l. johnson c. f. Nelson, william
L. Alsop, Calvin s. Montague, Francis
Price, William Elmer. Charles W Oliver,
Thomas Francis, Jr-. foreman; George s.
Howell, and L. J. Fletcher.
TIE indictment beint, read and the de-
fendant entering plea OF not guilty 10
both counts. Mr.. Laskey proceeded to in
struct the Jury regarding the nature OF
the indictment and what the Government
hoped to establish The defense waived
its opening and the first witness for the
prosecution, Demetrius vlasto, was called
to the stand. He identified the letter,
which he acknowledged as having been re-
ceived by him, and forthwith began to
make side remarks to substantiate his be-
lief of the identity of the writer.
II object to that, your honor, said MIR
Ralston, and the court sustained him. Mr..
Laskey then inquired about a telegram
sent by the witness To Mr. Tina yenis in
this city, but in the absence OF the tele-
gram in court Mr.. Raiston again objected,
but the court overruled him. Mr.. Shilling
ton said, Il think, your honor, that the
defendant should be made to produce the
telegram
That's what we don't propose to do"
rejoned Mr. Ralston.
At this juncture the prosecution aban-
doned the telegram, and sought to have one
OF the letters read by the witness but Mr..
Ralston was on his feet in an instant to
object. "These letters have not teen Of
fered in evidence, your honor, and / GER
tainly object to the witness reading them
well, we propose to offer them as eyi-
dence," said Mr.. shillington, lin time
when you do so, shall oppose Them.
remarked Mr.. Ralston.
At this the prosecution desisted, and con-
fined itself merely to an identification OF
the address and handwriting by the witness
Another point raised by Mr.. Ralston was
that the mailing and locality of collection
of the letter had to be established before
any identification with the defendant could
be coupled, "Oh, we leave that to circum
stantial evidence replied Mr. Shilington.
But you must prove they were written
and mailed by Mr.. Tina yenis retorted Mr.
Ralston, vino then began an attack upon
the Indictment, claiming that his client
could not be held guilty Of any violation
of the statute regarding the sending of
obscene and indecent letters through the
mails, upon the ground that the letters
offered in evidence were not within the
denunciation Of the law, which only APP
piled to printed publications or ether
printed matter meant for wide distribu-
tion. He held that private letters sealed
and sent 60 party were not public COM
munications, and were not within the
scope of the law. and that there was no
provision in the act of September, 1883
which amended the statute, that had any
intent of treating private correspondence
that passed between two individuals. in
support of his conteH tons he offered many
citations, notably the case of The United
States VS.. Chase, which was a caSe
appealed from an adyersei decision of a
lower court, and set aside by the United
States Supreme Court on the Identical
grounds raised in the case on trial He
made the further point that letters written
and simply directed to a private person
and not reproduced by any stylographic
process are not publications but private
communications, and he cited case where
Senator Vest had remarked of the amend
meat to the statute as having been made
to prevent the use of such stylographic
process. @
After recess the argument was resumed,
Mr.. Ralston still citing opinions favoring
his contention, but Chief Justice Bingham
held that the intent of the law was not
only to purge the mails OF such objection
able matter, but also to protectpeople from
being attacked through the mails by ma
lIcious and slanderous letters, and the use
of obscene and indecent language even III
a sealed envelope addressed to private
individual. and the letters were admitted
as evidence.
Mr.. Raston then raised his first objec-
ton regarding the proof that they bad
been sent from Washington and Mr.. James
E. Bell, superintendent of delivery OF the
Washington postoffice, was called to the
stand and identified thelpostmarks, etc.
Mr.. RaistOn argued thattAe defendant had
not been proven the writer or the sender