The Portland daily press., 1898-04-19

In the United States Circuit court, yes
terday, Judge Putnam began the hearing
of an action involving an important ques-
tion Of law. The Fairfield Foral company
is corporation engaged in the making of
artificial flowers. Up to the 2Sd day of
March last, it's business was largely con-
Quoted through the mails. but since that
time the postmaster Of Fairfield, MIR. W.
J. Bradbury, acting under orders of the
department. has refused to deliver mail to
the company and has also refused to pay
money orders directed to them. The COM
pany brings an action in equity against
Mr. Bradbury asking that he be enjoined
from longer Withholding the mail and
refusing payment of the money orders.
The company in it's bill states it's business
and the facts of the withholding of the
mail and aGds that 1t has reason
to believe that the defendent purposes to
continue to withhold the matter and also
that it is his intention to return the mail
received to the senders either directly or
through the dead letter office. The de-
fendant in his answer admits that he has
done the things of which the company
complains and says that he has acted un-
der the instructions Of the Postmaster
General. Thomas ]. Boynton, Esq.,, and
Hon. William I. Haines appeared for the
plaintiff and District Attorney Dyer rep
resented he..defendant.
In opening the Case, Mr.. Boynton read
the bill and spoke briefly. Mr.. Boynton
read tie provisions of the United States
statute comforting on the postmaster gen.
eral the right to close the mails to
lotteries, gift enterprises. etc., and said
that it would be contended by the orator
that the law was unconstitutional in that
it deprived citizens of their property with
out due process of law. Mr.. Boynton
further alleged that the law violated the
immunity of the citizen from arbitrary
search and seizure of his property. Mr..
Boynton contended that the postmaster
general should give hearing before act
ing in q case of this kind and said that in
this instance the first notice that the COM
pany received that there was complaint
dSolllou IhOAA was WACA UllClr Aihi1 was
stopped. The statute binds the postmaster
general to act upon evidence and no hear
ing had been allowed at which the COM
pany could present evidence.
Messrs. Frank j. Goodridge, the presi-
dent of the company, Arthur Fl. Terry,
Attorney General William Z. Haines were
then sworn as witnesses Mr.. Goodridge
testified to the organization of the COM
pany last February. The business was
already established, the company acquir-
ing it by purchase.
Mr.. Terry testified that the company
had employed about sixty people at Fair
field. Its business was largely done
through the mails. Mr.. Terry had box
filed with the artificial flowers made by
the company and they were to bo put in
evidence when Mr.. Dyer objected. The
discussion which ensued brought out the
fact that the defence intended to rely on
the legality of the action of the postmaster
general under the law and did not intend
to 90 into the nature of the business done
by the plaintiff company. Mr.. Boynton
said that he had not fully understood the
position of the defence and Judge Putnam
announced that it would not be necessary
to hear the evidence if the case was to be
decided on the law questions raised. Con
sequently no more witnesses were called
with the exception of the postmaster who
was asked as to the volume of the business
of the Floral company in.the mails. He said
the delivery of mails was stopped the COM
pany were redeiving about three thousand
letters day.
The matter then went over until this
forenoon when the counsel will present
the issues involved.