,UNITED STATES V.
were called here, I would, be obliged to direct them to render a verdict for the defendant for want of evidence against him; and such a verdict would not be at all different from the ruling which I make in allowing the case to be dismissed for want of evidence to support it.
UNITED STATF8 tl. HAnNED.
(Dl.Btrict Oourt, D. Washington, N. D. December 9,1890.) I
Mr. Winston. ,I move to dismiss-discontinue-this ,bill of indictment. The amount charged in it to have been embezzled by the defendant Harned constitutes 8. part of the larger amount alleged to have been embezzled bytbe defendant Brooks in the case just disposed of. I bave no testimony to prOo' ceed uponio one case more than another. The government is without testimony to sustain the indictment, being unable to get the items of account from the department; therefore, I ask the court for permission to discontinue the indictment. Mt·. Ooleman. The statement we made in the other case, your honor, would be applicable to this one, and on the same grounds' we desire a verdict in this case. We have a statement certilied from the commissioner of customs, showing that the government was at that time indebted to Mr. Brooks, who was Mr. Harned's (Jrincipal, instead of Mr. Brooks being a defaulter; that it ,is impossible that Mr. Harned could have been an embezzler, his principal having been largely a creditor of the government at that time. We think, as we stated before, under these circumstances, we are entitled to a verdict ofa jury, and we ask for it. The Oourt. I will grant the United States attorney's motion, and the reDlarks make in the case of U. 8. ag'<linst Brook8, ante, 749, are in a large degree applicable to this case; tbis being but another CQunt, really, upon the same indictment against the .custom-horise officials. The same order will be made. The defendant will be discharged, and bail exonerated.
UNITED STATF8 11. WILSON,
(Dl.Btrict Oourt, D. Ootorado. January 15,1891.)
UTTBRING COUNTBRFBIT MONBy-WHAT CONSTITUTBS-CONFBDBRATB MONBY.
The putting off a note of the late Confederate States of America as lawful money upon an ignorant man, in the night-time, is not the offense contemplated biRev. St. U. S. 5 5415, punishing the passing, uttering, or ,PUbli.Shing of any note 1l1imi· tation of the cirCUlating notes "issued by the bankmg associations acting under the laws olthe United States," and it iBnot indiOtable thereunder. .
On moti6hto Quash Indictment. J. D. Flrmiing, U. S. Atty. for the prisoner.
under section 5415, Rev. St. It appears in the indict!pent that the note ,passed was a Confederate States note, "payable two years after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States," and it bore some general resemblance to the treasury notes and national bank notes of the United States. It is said that it was put off upon an ignorant man, in the night-time, and without much examination on his part. The question which arises upon this motion is whether this can be called a counterfeit note, as having any likeness or similitude to the treasury notes and bank notes in general circulation; and I am of opinion that it cannot be recognized as having that character. The statute is: "Every,person who falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits," etc., "any note in imitation of or purporting to be in imitation of the circulating notes issued by the banking associations now or hereafter authurizeu or acting under the laws of the United Slates, or who passes. utters. or publishes, or attempts to pass, utter,or publish. any such note of the assodations doing a baming business, knowing the same to be falsely made, forged, or counterfeited, and who falsely alters," etc., "any such circulating note," -shall.be punished as prescribed in the, statute. It is only necessary the defined in this section, and in other sections to say which have been ,referred to in argument upon this motion, is that of .uttering, or publishing any counterfeit note. The note must 'to be issued by such an association doing a bankirig business. This,st> tar as disclosed, was not a counterfeit note at all. It was a genuine note; that is to say, it was a genuine note of the Confederate States of America, and therefore it was not counterfeit in the sense of this statute or of any statute. And then it was not on its face, or in any way, a note of any national bank, or oithe United States. There were no words to fuake it such. The counterfeit 'referred to in the statute must, at all events, have a greater resemblance, to the current money of the United States than to anything' else. This note, in the size and shape and color, and in the denomination of the figures upon it, has some resemblance to current notes in circulation as money; but that is not enough to make it a counterfeit of the circulating notes of the United States. The offense which this man committed in putting out this note was recognized at the common law as cheating, and it has been under consideration in the other case, which was decided this morning. The offense was that of cheating, aud it was by a false symbol or token. The token was the note, and the putting it off upon another as money was the precise offense of cheating at the commOl) law. It was imposing upon another, inducing him to believe that the paper which was offered hiiil:was'in'fact money When it was not. Here is a section of Bishop's Criminal Law, vol. 2,§ 435, in which a case veryanalogolls to this is referied to: "This doctrine has been carried so far in England that, where a man passed out to anuther person for change a bank-note, saying it was for five pounds, when really it was, as he knew, for only one pound, and received the chang& as for a five-pouud note, be was held to have committed this offense, though.
a O<lunterfeit note,
J., (oraUy.) The indictment against Wilson is for passing
UNITED STATES V. WOOD.
the person to whom he passed the note could read. Said Lord CAMPBELL, C. J.: · We are all of opinion that the conviction was right. In many cases a person giving change would not look at the note; but being told it was a five-pound note, and asked- for change, would believe the statement of the party offering the note, and change it. Then if, giVing faith to the false representation, the change is given, the money is obtained by false pretenses.' " That is this case exactly. This defendant offered the prosecuting witness the Confederate note as money. He made him believe it was money, and got change from him upon that understanding, and thereby cheated and defrauded the prosecuting witness of the money. This offense may be prosecuted under the statute of the state, if the state authorities are inclined to pursue it; and we will turn over the defendant to the state authorities if they want him for that purpose.
(CircuU Court, D. Rhode
IsZand. January 17,1891.)
PERJURy-SUFFICIENCY OJ' INDICTMENT-PENSION CLAIM.
An indictment for perjury alleged that defendant, "in a case tben pending before tbe commissioner of pensions of the United States, being a special examiner into the merits of the pension claim of one Edwin Brackett," did falsely swear, etc. HeZd" that tbe indictment was sufficient, although it failed to allege that the B. mentioned was the same B. who in his pension claim alleged himself to have been a member of Company F, Second R. L Volunteers.
After stating facts which constituted perjury, it was not necessary that tbe indictment should charge, in terms, that defendant did commit perjury.
This was a motion in arrest of judgment after a verdict of guilty. The indictment was drawn under Rev. St. § 5392, and alleged that Robert Wood"In a case then pending before the commissioner of pensions of the United States, being a special examination into the merits of the pension claim ,of one Edwin Brackett, who claimed to be 'entitled to a pension from the United States by reason, among other things, of the loss of the thu mb of his ltlft hand, and of injuries to his face, incurred on or about the second day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hunl1red and sixty-five, while in the service of the United States, * * * did knowingly, willfully, maliciously, corruptly, feloniously, and contrary to said oath. state and subscribe certain matters and things material to said inquiry int.o the merits of said pension claim of said Edwin Brackett, and did swear, amongst other things," -and so forth, setting out the alleged deposition, and falsifying the statements thereof, and concluding that the said statement "was false, and he, the said Robert Wood, then and there well knew the same to be false, all of which he, the said Robert Wood, then and there well knew, against ,the peace," etc. The prisoner moved in arrest-First, because the indictment-