Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-16
209,s56 80
CASE OF TOBIAS WATKINS.

WASHINGTON, June 1.-THE opinion OF tls
Court on the demurrer TO the third indictmen
against DR.. w atkins, wds delivered this morning
and will be found at length in another column
The indictment, il will be perceived, is quashed
| Judge Cranch took review of the objections O
the counsel Tor the United States to the opiLioD Of
the Court on the first demurrer. He observed
that they had argued FIRST that all that il was ne.
ceSsaiy to state in an indictment for fraud upon
tie public was, that the accused did certain spcci-
he'd acts with intent to defrAud the United States
that by such acts he did detraud The United States
that the acts so charged were such rs might da-
fraud the United States. They had argued Sc
condfy, that In the indictment before the Court
all the foregoing requisites were to be found and
that, therefore, the Indictment was good.
The Court then proceeded to question the Sc
como OF these propositions, and commended that the
indictment did not set forth such acts as unaccom-
pauIed by other circumstances, could deiraud the
United States. The Court also maintained, that
fraud was an inference OF law, 10 be drawn from
the facts charged, and that 10 allege that an act
was iraudulently done, merely meant that il was
done with fraudulent intent, the fraud must ap-
peaF,-nust be made manifest to the Court,-an
not rest solely on the naked allegations of the in
dictment. The Court further Observed that de-
cett was an essential ingredient OF fraud; and that
nothing in the indictment went to show that deceit
had been used, or that any person had been de
ceiyed by the acts alledged to have been done.
Those acts. as set out in this indictment, might
nave been innocent; 10 make them criminal, some
thing should have been shown TO prove their de-
ceriui tendency In that respect, th g present Ia
cictmeDt, ike the former one, was, in the opinion
OF the Court, Insufficient
The Court further said, that they had been mis-
understood by the counsel for the United States.
When the latter supposed that the Court thought
the indictment insufficient on account of charsing
false preences and that being insufficient on that
ground, IL could not be sustained even If IL charg-
ed sufficiently fraud upon the public as indicta-
bic at common law. The Court said it did not
give any opinion upon that point; the term false
pretenee was generally understood as applicable TO
the false pretences made ndctable by the statute of
George II. After long argument, in the course
OF which, they went through an analysis of the
indictment, the Court declared in favor of the de-.
murrer.
Judge Thruston dissented from the opinion ex-
pressed by the majority OF the Court aud contend
ed that the indictment was valid. The lateness OF
the hour at which the opinion was given, and the
length OF that opinion. compel us to suspend the
publication ofJudge Thrus;op's remarks, in detail,
until Tomorrow.
1t may be proper for US 10 state in conclusion.
that this matter has not yet terminated. We IN.
derstand that other indictments are in progress.
m.
.Hr. VouTse, the late Register The 7+cdsury.
The statement made 'duthOTitdtiveIy by the
National lntellgencer this morning, with regard
TO MIR. Nourse's removal, we '1ttthoTitafiTei,J'
pronounce UNTRUE. When Dir. Nourse sought
an interview with the President, he admitted Ha,
he 59as a defaaiteT TO the government 10 a eonSid.
cradle amount, and begged that he might be re
taued some tine longer in his situation, as remoy.
al, in his present circumstances, would ruin him.
To consent TO this, was Of course impossible and
IN announcing his determination. it is probable the
PRESIDENT took occasion 10 remark on the loose
manner in which the business Of the office had
been conducted, aud on Mr.. Nourse g conduct in
other respects as additional reasons for his reno
7si,