◆ SpookStack

. In United Btates v. Smith, 45 Fed. 476 (E.D. Wis. 1891) the court stated that a determination of obscenity depended upon circumstance. "fhe public exposure of the per- son is most obscene, yet the necessary exhibition of the | person to a physician is not only innocent, but is a proper act, dictated by positive duty. Instruction touching the organs of the body, under proper circumstances, is not repre- . hensible; but such instruction to a mixed assemblage of the youth of both sexes might be most demoralizing.” 45 Fed. 476, h78 (E.D. Wis. 1891). . In upholding the exclusion from evidence of testi- mony tending to show that the book in issue was intended fcr doctors and married couples, the Court of Appeals for the Righth Circuit has said: “The book itself was in evidence. Zt was not a communication from a doctor to his patient, nor @ work designed for the use of medical practitioners only." | Burton v. United States, 142 Fed. 57, 63 (8th Cir. 1906). | fhe Court of Appeals for this Circuit, in holding that proof of those to whom the pamphlet was sold is part of the Government's case, said: “In other words, a publication might be distributed among doctors or nurses or adults in ; cases where the distribution among smal) children could not de justified. The fact that the latter might obtain it acci- dently or surreptitiously, as they might see some medical books.