Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-06-05


thing material shall be taken by ininedmcnf. .
Hawk, p. &C. 25 $50. 2 East, SO, Bayard v.
Malcolm. In the case Of the King The inha-
bitants Of Lyme Regis Doug i5s)Judge Bull
lev says Certainly to a ceriain intent III gene
rail-" me ans what, upon a fair & reasonable con-
s,ruction, may be called certain, Wi bout rec ur-
ring to possible fact whichs d. no, appear, & is
what is required in declarations, repicarons,
and indictments in the charge, or Accusation:
and in returns 10 writs of mandamus." The
charge mus, contain such DIES ripion OF the
crime, sc. that, without intending any thing
but what appears, the defendant may know
what he is 10 answer, and what Is INTENDED 10
be proved in order that the Jury may be war
raned in their verdict, and the Court In the
Judgment they are to gi,e.-Rex v. Horne,
-Cowp. s62 Gritty on Pleading, 237. Ii is
true, Z" that it is a maxim II pleading, that ev-
cry thing shall be AIKEN most strongly against
the party pleading: or rather, that ii The words
be eouivocal, they shall be taken most strongly
against The parry PLEADING them; for II is 10 be
intended tina: every person states his case as IA
vorably to himself as possible. But the Ian
guage Of the pleading is to have reasonable
intendment and construction; and where an ex-
pression is capable Of different meanings, shat
shall be rak, which will support the declara'
lion. Sc and not the Other, which would de.
feat it,"
Wyat y. Aland Salk. 325. The King ..
Stephens s. al East 257. Amhers, y. Skyn-
ner, II East, 27o, and Woolio,h ., Meadows,
S East, 462.
The firsr ques' ION upon this point is, whether
If any fraud is sufficiently set forth IN the in
die meni, il is fraud upon The pu6he?
II has been suggested, in argument. that, as
The money was CHI ,rged by he United States 10
g NJ hn iS
bic for il, il was his MONEY y, and not the money
Of the United States, which was drawn out Of
his hands by the accused; and that as MIR
P.ulding is liable TO The Unired States. and has
given security, they have suffered, and Can SUI
fer no loss; and therefore that, il any fraud was
committed, il was a fraud upon Mr.. Padding,
and not upon the United States.
But TO This objection we think ii may he am
swered tina, il is not averrcd In the indictment
that The money was charged 10 Mr.. Paul"ine;
il i. ory averred that il Was placed in his hands
rs Nauy 3gent" and there is nothing ,Iated in
the indictment 10 show tina il ceased 10 be
public money in his hands. BY the 4th section
of the act of Congress of the Sd Of March, 1909,
the Navy Agents are directed whenever
prac ticsble, 10 keep HE public moneys in their
hands IN some incorporated Bank, 10 be drslg
mated for the purpose by the President Of he
United States" This clearly shows The under
sanding of the Legislature ~ be, that The mo-
ney, when i, came into the hands of the Agent,
did not cease TO be pubic money; and II II
should be lost without any negligence or de-
fault Of the agent, il would not be his loss, but
tina, Of the United Sates; and il the money
should have been charged 10 him in account,
we must suppose that, under such circumstan.
ces, the United STATES would credit him for the
7
accused, that he IS only liable to the United
Sta'es in ciDM action for he money which he
received Blu, f he is liable TO civil action by
the United S'a'es, il must be upon the ground
that he money which he received was the mo-
ney Of the United States. If Mr. PauIding was
Induced to pay these drafts by such ar,ful Con-
rrivances or false p'eences or tokens, as could
not BE- guarded against by ordinary Care and
prudence, the Uni'ed States might very justly
allow him credi for the loss; aud, ss the loss
in that case would fail on The Uared States, it
would be fraud on the public. And how is i,
less fraud upon the public, if Mr.. paulding
was not so deceived AID imposed upon, but paid
the drafts, knowing ha, the accused had no
right 10 draw? 1t could no, have been les,
fraud upon the United States, If Others had par
ticipated in il.
For these reasons we think tina, the money
Paulding, was the money Of The United States,
and therefore, that the fraud, il ANY, was fraud
upon tho public.
The next question is, whether the fraud be
sufficiently SCI forth in the indictment.
An Indictment must be at least as certain aud
precise as a special verdict, in which no mate
rial fact can be inferred.
This indictment. is undoubtedly intended to
be for fraud; and ought 10 aver the mean, by
which the fraud was effected. This is admit.
red by the terms Of the indictment, for il ayers,
" that by means Of the said several false pre-.
fences, the said Tobias Watkins, did at the
lime and times aforesaid, defraud the said Unit
ed S'ales Of the said two sums OF five hupdred
dollars each, and dispose Of THE same 10 his own
use and benefit, to the grea damage Of The Uni
ted States, and against the peace and govern
ment thereof"
The offence, therefore, which the accused is
called upon TO answer, is a fraud upon the
United States, perpetrateG by means of the
false Pretences previously set forth the indicl-
ment, yet there is not in the previous par, of