The Portland daily press., 1898-09-09

10th us and the complainant that the
respondent intended to put in issue the
matter which we have quoted. Therefore,
the court is compelled to pass on it, a
We are of opinion that, as the complain
ants case is now presented, it cannot law
fully use the postal system of the United
States in carrying ON its business shown
by the record before u.s. in coming to
this conclusion, the court is governed by
Durland V. United States. 16l U. S. S06;
which, after ALL is only. statement of
the plain intention of the statute, to the
effect that it includes everything designed
to defraud, not only as the word is un-
derstood by the common law. but by any
scheme which, by artful and untruthful
statements. the cupidity of various per-
sons IN the community may be unduly
excited We are not prepared to say that
a careful scrutiny of the law would pre-
cisely Justify the use of every word con-
tanned in this expression; but 1T is, for
present purposes, substantially sufficient
and correct statement of our views of the
law.
1t seems plain that the parties who con-
trolled the complainant corporation at the
time this bill was filed, had purged the
business as before carried on, of some Of
its objectionable features. Nevertheless,
we think that, in one essential particular,
they have failed to place themselves be.
yond the reach of the statutes and that
particular is substantially shadowed out
BY the counsel for the respondent in the
following language:
"The difficulty with the complainant's
case is that it cannot hide the fact thut
the company, that is, the complainant
"holds itself out as legitimate, bona fde
manufacturing concern Offering to give
when, as matter of fact,
its whole object is to sell instructions and
outf1ts.''
The court is not prepared to assent to
so much of this proposition rs claims that
the whole object OF the complainant is
to sell instructions and outfits We have
AS the particular issue thus remaining
involves only questions of fact, we do
not deem it essential or proper to go into
it at length. 1t is sufficient to say that
in defendants exhibit 2 complainant
makes statement that it can handle
goods profitably only in large quantities,
aud makes this the basis of its method
of dealing with those with whom it seeks
to deal This must be taken as shadow
ing out what Is stated elsewhere more
dire city. as appears in defendants ex-
hibit 8, as follows: "We don't want you
to sell any goods; we do that ourselves
through the wholesale stores. and by ad-
vertisements; all we want you to do is
to take our materials, make them Into
ebEblACldl hOWOISt RAo 81 Ol1s f1A0s iA
order to give this practical color, the same
exhibit contains fictitious letter with
the following expression: :" see that
Wannamaker's store has big sale of ar
tificial flowers which are just T. like the
kind have been making for you; so l
suppose you supply Them" All this sag
gests, as is said by the counsel for the re-
spondent, that the complainant is a
legitimate, bona tide nannfactuging con-
cern, selling its products to iargeS Sdealers.
1t is not entirely clear that the exhibits
to which we have referred, were put out
or expressly accepted by the persons in
control of the corporation when this bill
was filed; but they were impliedly adopt
ed by the defendants exhibit 10, which
is proven to have been issued by the COR
poration after it came under the control
of it's present managers, and which reads
as follows:
"Any woman can searn S1.85 to $2 90
daily making artificial flowers; we teach
you in one day and give steady employ
ment; we have hundreds of workers, dis
tance from us makes no difference; don't
delay, but send for particulars. Address,
Fair field Flower Co., Fairfield, Maine
The statement that the company had
hundreds of workers, in any sense OF these
word which they would carry to the
common understanding, is shown not to
have been true. 1t gives, therefore, false
color and support to the assurances of
steady employment; which assurances
also connect themselves with, and are
further supported by, what we have al.
ready referred to as parts of exhibits 2
and 8. Thus, by skillful manipulation
of untrue statements and suggestions a
false impression of opportunities for
steady employment is created, which is
clearly seductive, material in its nature
and consequences, and of the very essence
of the matter, and therefore, within the
statutes as interpreted in Durland v.
United States, uhi supra. Whether or not
any one complains of fraud, or was in
fact defrauded, is not important under the
statutes in question; and, by the rules of
law. complainant must be charged with
what it has given the public, whether its
managers appreciated the effect of it or
not. Consequently, we are compelled to
condemn the business in question as one
for which the complainant has unlaw-
fully used, and is continuing to unlaw-
fully use, the postal system of the United
States. 1t follows that, until the COM
plainant purges itself in the particular to
which we have referred, as illustrated by
our references to defendants exhibits 2,
3 and 10, and from the results flowing
therefrom, bill of the character of this
at bar cannot be maintained by it, and
the complainant must be left to its remedy
at law.
Let there be decree. in accordance
with Rule XXI, dismissing the bill, with
costs for the respondent.