The New York herald., 1869-05-10
BROOKLYN CITY.
THE C0UP.rs.
URITEo STATES o STRICT COURT.

Paymaster's Clerk An ,ho N.yv , nycmber
Of the Naval Servic e-Decision in the Bognrl
Case.
Before Judge Benedict.
e 0,"eo DN''eS cs. Robert ID. Bogart.-The fol-
lowing decision Id this case was rendered Oh Satur
day
This case com es before the Court ON motion for
W I'm on verdict taken subject to the opinion
~ ntn ,ne Vgaf The action Is brought in behalf OF the
ulstet's cer in the United States Navy under the
pro IS the act OF March 3 1862 The statute
ihsr any N the first section among other things
I,i, & any erson In the land or naval forces Of the
hn h ~ ates, or IN the militia actual service,
,S WHO Sna steal, embezzle, knowingly and wully
any any, m oney or other property Of the United
nal : .e,ua snail be deemed guilty OF crlml;
mar mar .ner provided by the act. In the third
don OF the act it is further provided that any per-
POI not IN the military naval forces OF the United
~ Ates or IN the militia called into actually en-
Dyed in the service OF the United States who shall
OF commit any OF the acts prohibited in the first
Fection shall forfeit to the United States the sum of
$1,000, and in addition double the amount OF the
damages which the United States NAV have
tanned by reason OF the dong committing such
act together with the costs OF suit and such forfeit
ure and damages shall be sued for in the same man
ner. Upon the trial OF the evidence was given
on the part Of the government showing that the de-
1endant was paymaster's clerk on board the re-
ceivng ship vermont and that While aching In that
capacity he converted to his own use certain moneys
belonging TO the United States, and the Jury,
under the objection on the part OF the defend
ant, were instructed TO bring IN a verdict Tor
the sum of $4,000, and in addition double the amount
OF damages which they found the government TO
have sustained by reason of the acts Of the defend
ant reservng for the opinion of the Court the ques
uon OF the applicability OF the third section OF the
act OF March 1868, 10 person holding the position
winch the defendant did. The question thus
served have now considered. and am of the opinion
that the ruling at the trial cannot be sustained The
defendant was shown to be paymaSter'S clerk,
regularly appointed as such, and at the time in
question In actual service on board the national ship
Vermont In TINS capacity he had charge OF certain
funds OF the United States to be used by him III pay
ment OF the seamen and other persons on the pay
roll OF the navy which he converted to bis own use.
Persons holding such positions are appointed by
virtue OF statute providing for the organization OF
the navy. They are required to the uniform of
the navy They are compelled to bind themselves
to be governed by the laws and regulations for the
government OF the navy and, cannot doubt, would
be held liable to trial by court martial. The third
section Of the act OF 1868 only applicable to persons
not in the military or naval forces of the United
States and cannot be held applicable to persons
the nrst section. In the case OF paymasters clerk
I'D the army arrested for trial before martial,
for acts prohibited by the first section OF the act OF
March 2, 1863, 1t has been held that such person
was in the military SERVICE liable to trial by mill
tary tribunal, and not entitled to be discharged on
Hin j. United States District Court for Southern
District OF Mississippi; l Chicago Legal News, y.
2l5.) can see no ground for distinction between
the army and navy in regard to the status OF this
ocer, and must hold that the defendant was in the
naval forces of the United States liable to trial by
the naval forces lie is not liable to the penalties
prescribed by the third section OF the act OF March
1868, and this verdict therefore for s., ooo and n
addition double the amount of damages proved, ac-
cordng to the provisions Of the third section of that
act, does not warrant Judgment for tnat amount
There must accordingly be q new trial. unless the
government consent to reduce the verdict to the
amount oi actual damages as proved. If this re-
ducton is made see no reason at present why judg.
ment for that amount should not be rendered against
toe defendant. But | VIII hear counsel upon the
point, desired upon the settlement OF the order
TO be entered upon the decision.