Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-09

Tor furnishing uowholesome bread for The children
at the Royal Military Asylum Mt Chelsea. This
was an indictment at Common Law, and had three
ingredients, either Of which was sufficient to sup
port it; viz: LIST. that il fraud upon the Gov
ernment, the Asylum being Royal Institution;
IDLY, that 1t was TO the injury Of an indefinite
number Of children, who were supported at the
Asylum-and 3dly, that the means used, viz: SELL
ing OF unwhoesome bread, were such as were
likely TO injure the public at large. No question
was made whether it was not an offence at Com
mon Law.
| In Porce!Fs case. Dallas Al. the principle is
more clearly recognized by the Supreme Court of
| pennsylvania 1t was indictment at Common
Law against Baker employed by the Army OF
the United States for cheat in baking PIG barrels
OF bread, and marking them weighing IS pounds
each, whereas they weighed only 68 pounds. II
| was objected that such fraud was not indictahe at
Common Law. But the Court said that this
was clearly an injury 10 The public; and the
| fraud the more easily perpetrated since it the
custom to take the barrels of bread at the marked
weight,without weighing them again: the Public,
| indeed, could not by common prudence prevent
the fraud, as the Defendant himself was the Off
Ger oil the Public, pro hac pice. They were,
therefore. OF opinion, that the offence was ndcta-
| bie." Here it was evident that the ground upon
which the indictment was sustained was the inj,s.
re- To the public.
So in the case of Rex rs. Bembridge s. Powell
Gifted in East. 1867 I" who were indicted for en-
abng persons TO pass their accounts with the pay
office in such way TO enable them to dehdud
the Government; it was objected, that il was only
private matter of account, and not indictable;
but the Court held otherwise, as ii related TO the
public revenue"
In Browns case, 6 Chiitv. 7al) the Indictment
was against an overseer Of the Poor of the Parish
Itcichenhdn, for fraudulently applying 10 his own
use money received by him for the parishioners
and rendering false accounts 10 conceal the fraud
to he damage and irp0verishMent Of the said
Pensioners"
| This was fraud upon an indefinite number of
| persons who could not individually obtain redress
| (See also Martins cases. Gritty, Criminal La,o
| 1919
J Other cases of Indictment for frauds upon the
Parish, may be found in Comb. 257 . Nod. i79,
2 Cdm,pi. 269, Bot. 5t2.2 Nolan, Poor LARS,
PAS 37i.
Robinsons case, 5 Chitty. Grim. Lao. 66s,
was an indictment against surveyor OF high
ways for fraud upon the Pensioners, by appro-
priatlhg gravel, and labour, &C. TO his own emo!u-
nent.
So in the case of the Minister of ST. Botorph,
w. b. 443, the rendering false account of mo-
MES collected for the relief OF certain sufferers bp
| lre, was said to be an ndctable offence. This
could be only because it was fraud upon an in
definite number OF persons who had no individual
! means OF redress.
So fraud upon a Parish, by procuring the mar
rage OF pauper to charge the Parish, is in
dictable upon the same prncipie-TdTanes case,
4 Bur- 2lO6.
so also fraud by an apprentice in obtaining
the public money by falsely enlisting himself as a
free man, is ndictabe 1T Common Law; because
1t concerns the public revenue-J0nes' case,
! Leach, 205.
These cases seem 10 establish the broad princi-
pie stated by East in his pleas OF the Crown S2f
and SIS, " hat all frauds affecting the Crown and
The public at large, &c or effected by any deceit
| ful or illegal practice or token (short of feIony)
which affects, or may affect the public, are ndct-
able offences at Common Law--and that under
! the terms public and &c public at large" are
included indefinite numbers of persons who have
suffered common or joint damage by reason OF the
fraud, and who have not, individually, right to
| prosecute the offender.
Ia regard, however, TO the present indictment,
is not necessary 10 extend the principle beyond
| fraud upon the public-if such is sufficiently sci
forth in the indictment.
| The question then occurs, Does this Indictment
sufficiently set forth fraud upon the public? BY the
long established rules of criminal law in this coun-
| try, every Indictment must be certain to n GER
tam intent in general" and 'nothing material
| shGil be taken 6y intendment."-2 Halois. p. @.
C. 25, : go. . East IS, BGyard v. .Hd,conl In
| the case Of the King v. the Inhabitants of LIME
! Regis Doug. 1851 Judge Buier says. &c Ger
fanny to a certain intent an general means,
: what, upon fair and reasonable construction,
may be called certain, without recurring to posi-
Die facts which TO not appear, and is what is re-
/ CURED in declarations, replications and indict-
nenfs, in the charge, accusation and in re.
| turns to writs Of mdndaUlUS." Z" The charge
must contain such description Of the crime, &c.
that, without intending any thing but what APP
pears, the defendant may know what he is TO an
| swer and what is intended to be proved, in order
that the jury may be warranted IN their verdict,
and the Court in the judgment they are to give"
her V. Horne, Coup. 6S2. l entity on Plead
ing 237. 1t is true, :" that it lis maxim in plead
ing. that every thing shall be taken most strongly
against the party pleading rather, that if the
words be equvoca, they shall be taken most
strongly against the party pleading them; for it is
TO be intended that every person states his
iayorabiy TO himself as possible But the language
nj the pleading is 10 have reasonable ipendment
| and construction; and whore an expression is ca
pable OF different meanings, that shall be taken
which will support the declaraticn SC. and not the
other, which would defeat it,"
! Wydt v. 4aad, I SGIb. 225. The King "
Stephens & al 5 East PSI. .Gmhcrst v. .Sbyn-
| ner, II East, 270, and jVooirothv v. NeadotcS, 5
| East, 1853.
The first question upon This point il. whether,
If any fraud is sufficiently set forth in the indct-
ment, it is fraud upon the public
IL has been suggested, in argument. that, as the
money charged by the United States TO the
account o! Mr. Paud:ng, who is responsible for
( it, it was his money, and not the money OF tile
/ United States, which was drawn out of his hands
by the accused; and that as Mr.. PauIdng is liable
TO the United States, and has given security, they
have suffered, and can suffer, no loss and there
fore that. ifany fraud was committed. it was
fraud upon MIR. Paulding, and not upon the Unit
ed States
! But TO this objection we think il may be answer
ed, that 1t is not aveTred in the indictment that
! the money was charged TO Mr.. Paulding; it is on
! Iy averred that it was " placed in his hands as
Nary .Age,1f," and there is nothing stated in the
indictment to show that it ceased TO be public
money in his hands BY the 4th section OF the
act of Congress of the 81 of March, 1859, the