Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-02

=
waite uses. He believed thiI would be found to be
misdemeanor at Common law. Mr.. Swami re-
tsrred TO the presentment OF the Jury, and read
the specifications OF the various drafts which form
ed links in the chain Of fraud. he ctated that
the case OF the requisi,on in tho name Of Potten.
ger, was put in an alternative shape, because il
was either federal or fraudulently obtained, and
in either case il came under the common law This
was done because thore was some doubt wheth-
the receipt endorsed on tho requisition, was in
the hand writing OF Mr.. Po,tepger. not Had
II not been put in an alternative shape therefore,
there wouldhave been probability that the in
dctment would be defeated.
AS 10 that part OF the indictment which charged
certain erasures, and alterations OF abstract OF
an account, he made some explanation with
view to shew the motives by which the Counsel
Tor the prosecutor had been influenced. An OBJ
lection had been taken TO the OF the expression
''coDsuin AMAZED I'm speaking of the completion Of
the fraud. Mr.. Swami defended the term as the most
appropriate and intelligible he could end in the
language. He cortended that the alterations OF the
abstract came under the denomination of forgery,
indictabie at the common law. He asserted that
the course pursued by DR.. Watkins, was precisely
tnat which public officer, i'll his situation, desiring
10 obtain pntlic money for his private use, would
pursue. The process must be that which is regu-
lar. Ho cannot take any course more direct
III can only obtain the money through the govern
Inent agent, by means OF regular requisition. he
imposes upon the agent by his public authority,
and thus perpelrates fraud on the government
Such was the case, and the Court was called up
on TO say ifii was an indictabe or not Com
mon law is common sense refined. 1t is COM
mon serse-comiron justice. 1t is then an offence,
which ought TO be embraced in the indictment. II
Is plain fraud and the common law must en-
brace it; if IL be common sense, and common
reason. In reply TO a suggestion from the learned
Counsel on the other side, that DIR. Watkins ought
TO be considered deiauter, he had referred TO
the necessity which had been discovered in Eng
o. IN NH nj sb em
element, and had stated that acts similar to those
charged against DR.. Watkins merely constituted
deiauiter. Mr. SWAMI denied that DR.. Watkins
could be viewed in the light of defauiter. He
had committed fraud from beginning to end; be-
ginning with writing false letter, and going
through the business in the same false s. fraudu.
lent manner. Originally obtaining the money by
wrong, he cannot be deemed defaulter. fHe
quoted from Russell, 1860, 10 bsar out his construc
ton lie Disseminated between the man who was
a wrong deer from the beginning, and one who
merely by The application of money fairly in his
hands, 10 his own uses, committed a default.
Ms. SWAMI then came TO consider whether the
offence charged against DIR. Wstlins, is indictable
al common law, according 20 the practice of the
Courts. He considered that the learned Counsel
who had quoted authorities and cases TO prove the
contrary, had taken an erroneous view OF tie
The definition OF the offence in the Indictment ha
considered 10 be the true one. He looked at vari-
ons authorities quoted in Essts Crown Law, TO
sustain the course taken by the Counsel for the U.
States; one oil which specified as misdemeanor
indictahle at common law, any doubtful practice
or pretences by which the public might be affected
II was upon the ground of this accurate definition,
which all the books had come into, that the indict-
msnt was founded.
Here the Court asked il there were any cases
MIR. SWAMI replied in the affirmative, and quo
ted several cases which he deemed to have bear
ing on the present case, and which were all con-
tanned in Easts Reports Sl6-lS. There were
decided not to come within the common law, -be.
fhntr oA In Nffa off
public. He then quoted Russell 1854, to show that
cheats upon the public came within the common
law. Frauds which affect the Grown and the pub
lie at large also clearly the subject Of indict
Inent, though they may arise out Of contract with
private individuals This is laid down p. 1862.
The turning point on which the fate of this case
must rest is injury TO the public. If that be shown,
The indictment must be sustained. He also quoted
a case (RusseIl 1906, and East, 1917 and ano.h-
er, Queen v. Woodward, and other cases. The
(4th East iTl) referred to false s. fraudulent
accounts rendered from provisions which had not
Seen delivered, and was particularly relied onby
Mr. SWAMI. He also quoted the case, the King
" Bernbridge s. Powell, Is East 1850 in which
ceptioIs taken TO an indictment were overruled on
the ground that the case involved an injury TO the
public. All the cases proved that whatever is done
which has bearing on the public, is ndictabe I'M
der the common law. The cases which Mr.. SWAMI
referred to, were numerous, and are to be found in
Chitty, Blackstone & Others on which he relied to
susain the view haolfences bearing on the public
are proper subjects for indictment under the COM
mon law. He could easily imagine that the iabri-
cation Of news might be the subject of criminal in
r.ictment, that such effects might be produced, as
would Justly form ground for common law in
dctment, AS the indictment in this case charg-
ed public wrong, he considered il as supported
by tie cases TO which he had referred.
iSKETcH Of .IeSsrs. Keys and COre'S arguments
hereqfter.l
Mr.. Coke closed the argument on Thursday last;
and the Court have taken the case for consulta-
lion. They will probably decide it in few days.
INITIAToRY PROCEEDINGS.
SINE commencing the Republication of the proceeding.
the sm tbs Inlelgencer and Journal full aud able
Report Of the has in the U.S. Telegraph We
should given this Report five had not made up par
lhe other Reports in first Fsge The Early Proceeding,
The case, however, publhed in hesTelessph aro very
ESSENTIAL explaining the origin ofthe prosecutions parts
eul.riy the clear affidavit Of Mt Kendall, which the FRI,
step, were founded that think due every
our readers, lay fully before them. They show how
these transactions of TObils Watkins were carried
TRIAL OF TOBIAS WATKINS.
Reporfed for the United States Telegram.
UNITED STATES Us. TOBIAS WATKINS.
Motion made by Mr. COKE, on Saturday, 10th
May, 10 qdash the presentment just as the court
was about to adjourn. The presentment was in
these words:
CSlig Of 81 V@.hingt haA May Term, 1929
The Jurors OF the U. States for the body of the
county aforesaid, their oaths and affirmation pre-
sent
That Tobias Watkins, in his capacity of 4th Au-
dtor Of the Treasury of the United States, osensi-
bIy for the public service, but falsely and without
authority, did, on or about the 9th day of July,
1927, procure from the United States Navy De-
partment directions to the United States Treasury
Department TO place in the hands OF J. H. Pauding,
Navy Agent at New York, the sam of one thou
sand dollars, which sum Of ore thousand dollars