The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-08-23
From he philadsIplia Sun Of Thursday.

UNIrEp STATES CommIssIosEa's OFFIcE-Byfore
Consmissioner Heaziin-1hs Alleged Uttering " q
Forged Assignment Of a Land WarTanf.A decisiop
in this case, the facts of which published yes
terday was given yesterday morning by Commits
sion er Charles r. Heazlitt. As thousands are IN
terested in land claims in the United States, and
as many agents for the procuring OF land warrants
act under the impression that they have the gene
raj power OF assigning such warrants, without 4
special power delegated TO them by the person
originally entitled to the warrant, we give the sub
stance of the opinion delivered by the commissioner
upon the point raised as to the agency OF the de-
fendant.
1t was commended by the defence that no fraud
had been committed against the United states.
That if any fraud has been committed, the result
of that fraud must be felt by Davis, whose agent
the defendant was.
To this the commissioner replies: That upon
carefully looking the evidence, with view TO
ascertain how far the agreement between the wit
ness (Dayis) and the defendant 81. Z. Maryin)
extended, he found that Davis applied for war
rant through Mr.. Marvin, who was to attend to
all other bY6pess-that is, relating to the three
months pas ~ Beyond this there does not seem to
be any agency. Whether the defendant is liable
to Davis not, is another matter.
The question is upon the fraudulent transfer.
certificate requiring the acknowledgment OF party
present would not require agent for that pur-
pose, except probably 10 prepare the proper form,
which in this was now presented printed.
Still less he the agent for ths aale, for Davis
never authorized the sale TO Hgt.t1inson Co., in
which the defendant says he actS-<as the agent or
the personator of Davis But IL Is contended by the
defence that no intention TO defraud has been here
shown, and that in order to bind over this defend
ant. il must be shown that there intention TO
defraud the United States.
That the warrant was issued and delivered TO
Marvin as the agent of Davis, is conceded, and
Davis bound as fully by this act if the war
rant had been sent to himself He entitled by
q certificate from Government to l60 acres of land,
and II only remained for him to locate. The Gov
eminent was bound to him for this land, the
value thereof The certificate gives to hinS.
aud of course to his assignee, the right to locate;
and if the fraudulent Nasgnee or assignor steps in
and succeeds in locating land under that warrant,
and afterwards dsposes of that land TO third par
ties, the United States still bound to John ID.
Davis He must not be prejudced by unlawful
act, committed by person who has taken advan-
tage of his good fortune, and attempted to deprive
him of his lawful rights.
Ii the land thus obtained by the fraudulent use
OF Daviss name be disposed of TO innocent third
parties. parties without notice, it is question
of doubt whether the United States would not be
the sufferer, and the assignment fraud upon the
Government
We incline to the opinion that if upon the hear
ing OF this the court ahoud hold otherwise than
given above, it would open the door to the perpc-
tration OF gross frauds, not only upon the Govern
ment but upon individuals.
The defendant was held in $500 to answer at the
present term of the United States district court.