Wetzel

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is assigned as error that the court overruled the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment, which was interposed on the ground that the indictment charged one offense in three counts. That defect, if it existed, was no ground for quashing all three counts. A motion to quash is not favored by the courts. It is ordinarily addressed to the discretion of the court. Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306 , 16 Sup. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709 ; Hillman v. United States, 192 Fed. 264 , 112 C. C. A. 522 . And the objection that all the counts are for the same offense should be made by motion to require the prosecution to elect, and not by a motion to quash the indictment. United States v. Harmon (D. C.) 38 Fed. 827 .

[2] It is urged that the indictment is defective, in that it does not set forth the facts upon which the government relied to show that the printed circular mailed by the defendant contained information forbidden by the statute. But the indictment in the first count states that *986 the figures so pasted on the back of the circular “then and there gave information that divers articles and things designed, adapted, and intended for…