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

and therefore. that the fraud If any, was fraud
upon the public.
The next question is, whether the fraud be sul-
hcienuy set forth in tho Indictment
( An indictment must be at least as certain and
precise as Especial verdict, in which material
! fact can be inferred.
This indictment is undoubtedly intended 10 be
| tor fraud: and ought TO aver the means by which
! the fraud was effected. This is admitted by the
terms OF the indictment, for it AYERS, "that by
means OF the said several false pretences toe said
rosss Watkins, did AZ The time and times Aforesaid
detraud the said United States of the said two
sums oil i've hundred dollars each, and dispose OF
the same TO his own use and benefit, to the great
damage oil the Y. States, and against the peace and
| government thereof"
| The offence, therefore, which the accused is call
ed upon to answer, is a fraud upon the United
States, perpetraed by of the false pretences
previously set forth in the indictment, yet there
Is not in the previous part of the indictment any di-
rect ayerment oil any pretence, either true false.
II true that there is preceding averment "that
the said letters and drafts SO aforesaid written
and sent, and drawn and sold aforesaid, and the
said requisition caused and procured TO be issued
as Aforesaid, were, and each Of them was so writ
ten, sent, drawn, and sold, and caused aud pro-
cured to be issued as aforesaid without any author
ty therefor, and not for on account of the pub
lie service, but Tor the private gain and benefit of
the said Tobias w atkins, and with intent TO defraud
the United States, and false pretences to enable
him to obtain TO his own use and benefit the said
two sums Of five hundred collars each.'' But il
does not state what the pretencc was. II does not
state that the accused pretended affirmed any
| thing 10 any body. 1t there was no pretcnce,
there was DojaiSe pretence. Let us analyxe this
avermeni, and apply, as no doubt was intended,
Singutd siuguiis.
IL is, LIST, An averment that the letters were
written without authority; ID, That they were
sent without authority; Sd, That the drafts were
drawn without authority; 4th, That they were
sold without authority; 9th, That the requis,on
was obtained without authority: 9th, That these
things not done for or on account OF the pub
lie service, but for the private gain and benefit of
the accused, and with intent TO defraud the United
! States. But il is not averred that, the accused
f., ever pretended 10 any one that he had authority to
write those letters, TO draw those drafts or TO
obtain the requisition, that they were for the
public service-or that they were not for his own
use.
tits true that it is previously averred in the in
dictment that he "did ostensibiy for the public
service, but falsely and without authority, cause
and procure to be issued from the Navy depart
ment certain requisition," &c.
But the words "0SteHSi6iy TOR the public SER
! rlce' do not amount TO an ayerment that the
cused pretended ana affirmed TO the Secretary of
the Navy, or to any other officer of the Navy De-
partment, that the requisition was for the public
service.
But it is averred that the letters were written
and sent, and the drafts were drawn and sold, and
the requisition was obtained, "as fulse pretences"
but something like ii. But if it were TO be con-
strued as an ayernent that the letters, the drafts,
and the requisition, were false pretences, and by
means oil such false pretences the accused defraud
: ed the United States, such averment in an in
dictment is not sufficiently certain The averment
must state what was pretended, and that what was
pretended was false, and wherein, or in what par
hcular it was false. The gist of the crime is tho
ialsehoo6 OF the preence, and il is therefore
cessary that it should be made apparent upon the
face OF the indictment by positive and precise aver
ments.
This Rule is supported by many authorities,
but one only will be cited--t is the case of Rex
y. PeTrott, .iduie and SeItryn, $40. Ii is true
that this was an indictment upon the statutes OF
| 3O q. :, C. 24,-butth statute does not require
that the pretences should be particularly set out
nor specifically negatived; the words of the sta
tute being merely these, L" That all persons who
knowingly and desgnedly, by false pretence or
pretences, shall obtain from any person or persons,
: money, goods wares, merchandise, with in
tent to cheat or deiraud any person persons OF
the sane,' :" shall be deemed offenders against
law and the public peace and shall be pun
: ished by hne, imprisonment, pillory, whipping, or
\ transportation, &C.
But the Judgment of the Court was only an an
plicaion OF general rule in regard to all indict-
ments whether upon statute or the Common
Law. The Indictment averred that the Deien-
dant intending 10 cheat and deiraud one Bullen
OF his monies, &C.. unlawuy, wickedly, know
ingly, and designedly, did falsely pretend to the
Salt1iouiIen, mar ue tIle Defendant, Could obtain
protection for Bullen, by favor of the Lords of
the Admiralty, by feeling the Clerks, as he had
an uncle Lord Of the Admiralty, and that il
would be no great expense as he could get it done
through favour" SC. 90 6y means of tchicF SAID
several false T're.ences," the Defendant obtained
the money, &c. The cause was brought up from
the assizes TO the Kings Bench by Writ OF Error
and the assigned was, that there was no
cceTmenf to- dlSVy the matters of the several pre-
fences set forth in the indictment, by which IT
could appear to the Court upon the face of the in
dictmen, that any either of the pretences alleg-
ed was false aud untrue.
Lord Ellenborough, in delivering his opinion
said, A" Every indictment ought to be so framed
as TO convey TO the party charged, certain knowl-
edge OF the crime imputed TO him" I" To state
merely the whole OF the false pretence, is TO state
a matter generally combined of some truth as well
as ialsebood. 1t hardly ever happens that il is I'M
accompanied by some truth Suppose the offence,
instead OF being comprized within FIVE or six sep
arate matters oil prelence, as here, had branched
out into 20 OF 30, Of which might be true,
and used only vehicle OF The falsty; are we to
understand from this form Of charge, that it ind-
Gates the whole to be false, and that the Defend
ant is TO prepare TO defend himself against the
/ whole? That would be contrary to the plain sense
OF the proceeding, which requires that the falsifica-
ton should be applied to the particular thing TO be
falsiiied, and not TO the whole. And he conve-
nience also of mankind demands, and in further
aDce OF that convenience, il is part OF the duty of
those who administer justice TO require, that the
charge should be specific, in order to give notice
10 the party oil what he is to prepared to de-
! fend; and 10 prevent his being distracted amidst
the confusion Of a mul,iiarious and complica ted
transaction, parts Of which only are meant 20 be
impeached of fasehood.' Z" Ii has been argued
that. perhaps. every one of these charges may be
false but the rule as il has been derived from