the ,case for error. in plea,wehavecbnsidered ,the other questIons coun, sel so requested. The judgment of the court should be reverset\ Ilnd the case remanded,' with instructions to reinstate the fourtli plea, award a new tl'ial, and otherwise proceed according to the views herein expressed. And iit :is so ordered.
STURDrv'ANT v. MEMPHIS NAT. BANK. (CircUIt Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 171. In error to the Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Nortl1ern District of Missis,sippl. ' E. Mayes, for plaintiff in error. W. V;Suliivan, for defendaiIt In error. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circult Judges. PARDEE, Circuit Judge. This case is, in all respects, Identical with the case of Sturdivant v. Bank (No. 170; just decided), .60 Fed. 730, and is to be ruled the Same way. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case. remanded, with Instructions to reinstate the fourtb plea, award a new, trial, and otherwise proceed according to the views announced by this court. UNITED STATES v. JEFIj'ERSON. (DIstrict COurt, D. Washington, N. D.
UNITED STATES-EIGHT-HOUR' LAW-SEAMEN.
February 27, 1894.)
January 19, 1894.)
Seamen upon ,a vessel are employed up()n ''public works of: tbe United States" (27 Stat. 340) wben engaged in removing obstructioD.jf to navigation in rivers and harbors, and to exact from' them more than eight bours' labor per day at this work, or in the actual care and repaii" of appliances necessary to carry it on, will subject the offender to in. dictment. '
At Law. Indictment charging E. H. Jefferson, master of ,the steam snag boat Skagit,with unlawfully requiring laborers em· ployed in removing obstructions to navigation to work more than eight hours in a single day, in violation of chapter 352, Laws 52d Oong. (27 Stat. (340). Jury trial. 'Verdict, ''Not guilty." Wm. H. Brinker, for the United States. L. C. Gilman, for defendant. HANFORD, District Judge (orally charging jury). The act of con· gress upon which the indictment in this case is founded prohibits any officer of the United States having the direction or control of laborers upon any public works of the United States from requiring or permit· ting, intentionally on his part, more than eight hours' work in a calendar day. does Ij.ot apply to all persons employed in the governmeni service. It is limited to work designated "the public
UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON.
works of the United States." To bring a case, therefore, within the inhibition of the statute, the ,evidence should be sufficient to show that the officer having the direction and control of men employed upon some public work in which the government is engaged exacted from those men or intentionally permitted them to work more thau eight hours in a calendar day upon such public work. The removal. of obstructions to navigation in the rivers and harbors of the country is a part of the public work of the government. Men employed in removing obstruotions are employed upon public works, and they are to be deemed to be engaged in public work while they are actually working upon the obstructions, and during the sary time employed in going to and from the places where the work is to be performed and the places where they have to lodge or where they go to meals; and they are also to be deemed engaged in labor upon such public work when they are necessarily required to repair their tools, or grind axes, 01" do work of that kind. Anything that is incident to their labor in the public work is to be deemed labor upon that public work. There is evidence in this case tending to prove that the men named in the indictment were employed as sea· men upon a government vessel. The steam snag boat Skagit is a vessel belonging to the war department, and in the public service, and the crew of that vessel are laborers of a different kind from those who are ordinarily employed upon public works of the United States. The statute does not apply to the crew of such a vessel. The evidence also tends to show that the same men who were serving as part of the crew of this vessel were also sent to labor upon public work in removing snags and obstructions from the rivers and harbors. Now, if you are satisfied from the evidence that these men were thus employed in a double capacity, you will have to discriminate, and, in order to convict, find that the defendant required them upon the public work, aside from their duties as deckhands or seamen on the wssel, to perform more than eight hours' work in a day. The policy of this law is something this court and members of this jury are not responsible for. Congress has made the law, and it is obligatory upon all of us to obey it, and enforce it; and we are called upon to do so, no matter how much the public service may be prejudiced by its enforcement; that is a matter congress in its wisdom has seen fit to enact into a statute, and all we can do is to obey it. The case is the same as other criminal cases,-one in which the government has to establish by proof every material allegation of the indictment in order to warrant a conviction; and the jury, upon consideration of the testimony, must decide what the facts and unless you are, by the testimony in the case, convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, your verdict should be in his favor,-a verdict of not guilty. This reo quires you to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, by the evidence, that upon some day prior to the date of the indictment the defendant required some one of these men named in the indictment to perform labor in or about the removal of obstructions to rivers or harbors for more than eight hours in a singe calendar day. The v.60F.no.5-47
nD:tlU,L . :REPORT£R,vol.
UNITED STATES v. MOORE et at. (DIstrIct Cotirt,N.D. New York. April 2, 1894.) 1. FORGERy-REV. ST. § 54el-FALSE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE. The makIng, or procurlng.to.be made, an affidavit wIth the false statements, . the pensionclalmlJJl.t and Id4;IDtIfying witneases appeared 00fore the ,l,a0tary, and that thE' alleged a.1Ilants subscrIbed their names and were li!worn In his where. all its 9lgnatures are genuine, and no altered, tor'ged, or counterle1ted, is not Indictable under Rev; 'St. § 1>421, which'provides a punishment for every .person who or procures:to be "falsely made," a writing, etc. 2. SAME"'7lliDICTMENT. . An indictment for making, or procuring to be made, a false affidavit, must allege specifically In What the falsIty consIsts, and connect defendant thereWith. .
At Indictment of W. Bowen Moore and Achille J. Oishei under Rev. St. § 5421. Heard on demurrer. WilliamF. Mackey, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., for the United States. John Laughlin, for Moore. George W. Cothran, for Oishei OOXE, District Judge. It is agreed by all that the indictment is founded upon the ftrstparagraph of section 5421, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which is as follows:
"Every person who falsely. mUllS, alters, fOl'ges, or counterfeits; or causes or procures to be falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or willingly aids or assists .in the false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States, or any of their omcers Ol' agents, any sum of money;" shall be imprisoned, etc.
The indictment alleges that on the 24th of October, 1892, at Buffalo, the defendants "did then and there knowingly, wrongfully and unlawfully falsely make and willfully aid and assist in the false making of a certain affidavit and writing for the purpose of enabling another person, to Wit, Christian Neusel, to obtain and receive from. the United States of America a certain sum of money, to the jurors aforesaid unknown, then and there claimed to be due to the said Ohristian Neusel on account of his military services and disabilities' incurred" during the war of the Rebellion. The indictment then sets out the affidavit in full. It contains the necessary facts to enable the applicant to obtain a pension. It is signed by him and by two identifying witnesses and states that all of the afliants appeared before the subscribing notary public. It also contains a jurat signed by "A.J. Oishei,Notary Public," in which he certifies that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him, and that its contents were fully made known and