Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-06-11

nothing in the character Of the nar,ie. n, l., "a.
circumstances of the transaction which .bonla
make il n case Of exclusive federal iorisdie,ion
hut that II II he In iis nature n cotu,so an law NJ
fence Il had bcen'commilied in State. IL might
have been tried In n sinte Court, as mn offence
against that Stnte We think, therefore. thu
II be common law offence committed IN
This country, IL Is within the iuri,dction of hi.
court "hose common law infisdiciion is derived
rom the common INV of Maryland. which was
by the accession Of Maryland and the accen.
lance of Congress, under the provision In m.
constitution Of the Uuited States Transferred
from Maryland 10 the United States with that
remnant 81 stair sovereignty which. after the
adspiinn Of the federal constitution, wss lief, IN
Mary land. All the State prafaRntiyos which
Maryland enjoyed under the common Law
which she adopted soaar as concerned tie &C..
ded territory. passed TO the United Sntes All
the power which Maryland had. be vir,ne NJ
that common law prerogatve TO punish bv
Indictment offenders against her sovere,enty.
and to protect that sovereignty, became vested
IN The United States aud authorized them IN
punish offenders against their soyersIvntv
and In protect Tint sovereignty by the same
lneens--so far ms regards The territory coded
We therefore think lnat, IN regnrd 10 offences
committed within this pari OF the District the
United states have criminal common INV
~" hia' 'h's court has criminal law JuriIdfe-
tion.
Upon the second ground of demnsrer ,bo
Court waiyiag the idea Tint Wnikinslf ensc fol,
snder the description OF frauds committed hv
means of false public tokens. such M falsr
weights, measures, or marks, or by means Of
forgery or conspiracy. fixed upon the remain.
ing class OF cases Of fraud, via such n. by
their means affect the public een.rnllv - ~
thu only class within which this cnse eonid ho
brought. To provo that il Is eomprchended
IN this, we presume, very comprehensive elass
the Court goes INTO the examination Of much
law learning 70 establish and does wa thinL 40,
siactotily establish, taking always The eIleoo.
tons OF the indictment to be true md sustained
But this point being established, nno,he, on,
occurs, whether namely, the fraud ia sniff.
| cien'y SET forth IN tho indictment md
| II So whether u he fraud upon the public 2
The last oi these questions was suggested
by the argument that tho money draw ~,
Watkins improperly, was not the money of ,be
United States, but Of James X. Paulding Navy
Agent ~ New York. The reasonin. and dc.
c'son OF the Court upon this point nre as fol.
lows
+" II has been suggested, in argument. TINT
| ms the money was charged by the Un,t,d STAT,
TO the account of Mr.. Paudine who |. resnoo.
sibe Tor IL, IL was his money, and not the mo.
ney of The United States, which was drawn on,
| OF his hands by the accused aud TINT n. Mr.
faulding N liable 10 the United States and
has given security. they have suffered md
ran sniier, no loss, aud therefore TINT if
| any fraud WIS committed, il wna n fr,,t
upon Mr.. Paulding. and not upon the uni,rd
States.
But 10 this objection we think il NAV be- mn.
swerod. that II rs not averrrd In the Indictment
HAT the money was charged 20 Mr. Padding
- la
hands Nary AGENT" aud there Is oo,b,no
stated IN tho indictment To show that n ceased
10 be public money in his hands. By the 1tb
section OF thr act Of Congress OF The Ard of
March, 1900. the Navy Agents are directed
whenever praehbie, 10 keep The public mo,eus
IN heH hands III some Incorporated Bank To
be designated Tor the purpose by the PrrsitIeut
of,he United States" This clearly shows ,b.
understanding Of the Legislature TO be. lin,
The money, when II came into the hand. OF tbe
Agent, did no' cease To he public money, and
u ~ should DO 1851 without negligence or de.
fault OF the agen' II would no, be bi. Ioss Inn,
that Of the United States. and IL the money
should have been chargedI,o him 10 acconn, W.
must suppose that, under such circumstances
the United States would credit him for Tho losv
II has been suggested on tho part OF fhS art,j
sed, thar he Is only liable 10 the United States
IN eiyit action for the money which he rece;.
| we'd. But ifbe is liable 10 n eipu ae,on bv M.
United States, II must be upon the ground ,ba,
the money which he received was IN, mon.,,
| Of the United States II Mr.. Pauldlng was in
duccd TO pay thoss drafts by such nrtlul con.
| trivances or false pfetences or tokens as could
| not he guarded againsi by ordinary care and
prudence, the United States miyht yerv bfs,Ig
allow him credit Cor The loss and, ns he los
| In that ease would fall on The United stat,
II would be a fraud on the public Aud how
is il less a fraud upon The public, If Mr. Panld.
Ing WIS not so deceived aud Imposed uuop,
but paid the drafts knowing that the accused
had no right 10 draw II could not hive been
less u fraud upon the U. States, IL Others had
participated in il.
For these reasons we think that the mopev
drawn by the accused out Of the hands o, MI
Panlding was the money ofthe United States
aud therefore that the fraud, ifany was fraud
upon the public.
The next question, to wit +" whether ihF
fraud be sufficiently sci forth in the indie ,nen,',
is adjudged by the Court in favor of the De-
fendant, and on the ground, thst the ndictmen,
does no, aver the use of the false preiences in
the various steps he took FOR the purpose of
getting the ,m6hey into his possession. The
following summary will make the reader
master Of the views The Court upon ,b;s
point.
It's, LIST, An averment that the letters were
written without authority I'd, That they were
sent without authority Sd, That the drafts were
drawn wiihsoi authority 9TH, That they were
| sold without authority 9th, That the r,auis,.
ton was obtained without authority 9th, That
tbese things were not done for or on accom-,
OF the public service, but for the private gain
and benefit of the accused, and with intent 10
defraud the United States. But il e not aver.
red that the accused, ever pretended 10 any one
that he had authority TO write those letters or
to draw hosedrafts, or 20 obtain the requisi.
ton. or that they were for the public service
or that .hey were not for bis own use.
This case shows that according 10 the general
rule of certainty applicable to indictments, The
particular pretences must be set forth, and il
must be averred in what particulars they were
false. We are therefore of opIninn thai this