States. In these viewB the court concurred with the United States attorney, and on his motion ordered a jury to be empanelled to give a verdict in the case. The court considered, and so said, that these defendants were entitled to a trial-to a verdict of guilty or not guilty; that it was unjust to deny them that right because the state oiDelaware did not choose to prosecute these suits in the United States courts to which they had been transferred, and they were not to be damnified by indifference or neglect, or delay in the state authorities by act of congress to in prosecuting suits which. they were prosecute if they desired to do so. It was the change of tribunal and not the change of prosecuting officers which was contemplated by act of congress. Let this be as it may, however, the defendants had a right to the verdict of a jury. When the jury was empanelledthe court again demanded to know if anyone authorized by the state was here now to prosecute these charges against the defendants, and receiving no replythejurywas empanelled and sworn in the several cases. The court then explained the circumstances of the cases, and directed the jury to render a verdict of acquittal. The verdicts of acquittal were rendered accordingly, and thus were terminated the cases transferred from the state to the United States courts under section 643 of the Revised Statutes.
UNITED STATES V. MASON.-
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. Ohio, W. D.
Augl.lst 22, 1881.)
PENSION LAWS-CLAIM AGENT-OVEROHARGING FOR FEES-SEOTION REV. liT., REPEALED-lNDIOTMENT UNDER SEOTION 5485.
The only provision in the title of the Revised Statutes pertaining to pensions, limiting the fee which an agent or attorney might lawfully demand and receive for the prosecution of a pension claim, (section 4785,) having been repealed by the act of congress of June 20, 1878, an indictment under section 5485, for receiving a greater compensation "than is provided for in the title pertaining to pensions," cannot be maintained.
SAME-INDIOTMENT FOR WITHHOLDING PENSION MONEY.
Notwithstanding the law requires all pension moneys to be paid directly to the pensioner, an indictment charging the defendant with unlawfully with· holding pension money due a pensioner, held good on demurrer U. 8. v. Oonnally,l FED. REP. 779, foUowed and app1·oved.
On Demurrer to Indictment. Chas. H. Blackhurn and P. S. Goodwin, for the demurrer. Channing Richards, U. S. Dist. Att'y, contra.
""Reported by J. C. Harper, Esq., of the Cincinnati bar.
UNlTED STATES V. MASON.
BAXTER, C. J. Defendant's demurrer raises two questions. Three counts of the indictment allege ,that on the tenth of May, 1879, the defendant received from Barbara A. Bently, for his services as 11er agent in the prosecution of a pension claim, a greater cqmpensation than is provided for in the title in the Revised Statutes pertaining to pensions. These counts are based on sections 4785 and 5485 of the Revised Statutes. The first declares that no Agent or attorney shall receive a greater compensation for his services in the prosecution of a. pension claim than such as the commissioner of pensions shall direct, not exceeding $25. The latter provides that if any agent 01' attorney shall receive a greater compensation for such services "than is provided for in the title pertaining to pensions," he shall be etc. Such was the law for several years prior and up to the twentieth of June, 18'78, when congress passed the act of that .date, fix.ing the fee of agents and attorneys such service at $10. This act does not in terms profess to repeal the foregoing sections, or either, or any part of either of them, but necessarily supersedes so much of section 4785 as vested the commissioner of pensions with authority to fix the amount of fee to be paid within the limits mentioned, and to that extent repeals said section. There was, therefore, at the time the defendant received the compensation complained of in the indictment, no provision in the title of the Revised Statutes pertaining to pensions, limiting the fee which an agent or attorney might lawfully demand and receive for stich services, and it follows that the coun t ing that defendant received a greater compensation than is provided for in said title cannot be maintained. The demurrer will therefore be sustained to these counts. The other counts of the in.dictment are for an alleged unlawful withholding by defendant of a part of the pension money due to Mrs. Bently. His contention is that as the law requires all pension moneys to be paid directly to the pensioner, the court must judiciftlly know that it is impossible for an agent or attorney to wrongfully wit!lhold . it, and that for this reason the defendant's demurrer ought to be also sustained to these counts. This very question was considered by Judge Drummond in the case of U. S. v. Connally, 1 FED. REP. '7'79, in which the learned judge held adversely to the defendant's view of the law. His decision is able, full, and satisfactory. I think it right and adopt it, and, for the reasons stated therein, defendant's demurrer to said last-mentioned counts will be overruled.
UNITED BUTEIiJ V. FISHER.·
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. Ohio, W. D.
August 22, 18S1.)
ELECTION SEClION 5515, REv. ST.
A supervisor of election, appointed under the laws of the United States, is an "ojftCf/l' of an election" within the meaning of section 5515, Hev. St. 2. SAME-INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGES-SECTION 5511, REV. ST. While the judges of an election, at which a representative in congress is voted for, are engaged in counting the ballots cast, to mingle with the ballots cast ballots having thereon the name ofa candidate for representative in con· gress which the defendant well knew had not been voted by any of the electors at such election, constitutes" an unlawful interference with the judges of the election in the discharge of their duties," within the meaning of section 5511, Rev; St.
On Demurrer to Indictment. George R. Sage and Chas. H. Blackburn, for demurrer. Cha.nniny Richards, U. S. Dist. Att'y, contra. BAXTER, C. J. The indictment in this case is demurred to. It contains six counts-four of them predicated on section 5515, and the others on section 5511, of the Revised Statutes. Section 5515 provides"That every officer of an election, at which a representative or deleg:\te in congress is voted for, whether sucb officer of election be appointed or created by or under any law or authority of the United States, or by or under any state, territorial, district, or municipal law or authority, who neglects or refuses to perform any duty in regard to such election required of him by any law of the United States, or of any state OJ: territory thereof; or who violates any duty so imposed; or whhknowingly does any act thereby unauthorized, with intent to affect any such election or the result thereof, ... ... ... shall be punished,"
Oneof these counts, which will serve as a sample of them all, charges that defendant,-
"Being an officer of an election at which a representative in congress for the first congressional district of Ohio was voted for, to-wit, a supervisor of election, duly appointed under the laws of the United States for the voting precinct A, of the first ward of the city of Cincinnati, did unlawfully and knowingly do an act unauthorized by the laws of the United States, or of the state of Ohio, in that, while the judges of said election were engaged in counting the ballots cast in said precinct, he did mingle with the ballots so cast certain, to wit, fourteen, ballots, having thereon the name of a candidate for representative in co.ngress for said district which he well knew had not been voted by any of the electors of said precinct, with intent to affect the'result of said election by having them counted as ballots cast bv the electors of said precinct," etc.
*Repol'ted by J. C. Harper, Esq., of the Cincinnati bar.