The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1874-06-11
THE JENNISON CASE.
Judge Miller's Charge to the Jury.


Judge Miller's Charge to the Jury.
Gentlemen q tie july:
This trial. through which ,oa have pa
tiently sat for the Ia { tsen,y Jour hons, is
no dOubi conf lefed by the Government and
by the defendsn', - one Of very consider
able importance, and it is important 10 both
parties. l shall endeavOr. therefore, 10 lay
down the principles Of Law that are apple
able to the case, ss clearly - car, 20 se to
enable You to cone TO ju,t conclusson in
the Performance OF the duties which the sit
ustion imp ses On eech Il IA.
The cha'g., or chYrse, though t'.ere
are fOlr counts in the indiCtmenis. may be
divided subs an,ia''y iatO twO charges, -
they are dekcribsd iu the 9. atute under which
the Indictment il founded. The 6rst of
Of these which will mentor, though not
the first in rider, il Ire chsrxe Of Conspir.
acy. The language Of the statute IN tia,
subj CT ie: "Any PerfO1 who shall enler
int an agreement, co,nbn Il on or conspir-
acy II cheat and dtfraud the Government Of
the United Sto,es, or any department or Of
6cer thereof, BY obtaining or aaisiing to OBJ
tain the payment or allowance Of any fslse
or fraudulent claim, shall be" subjected toa
certain puni .hmsnt. That il the language
of the act defining conspiracy. And
it requires combination o. agrernen, be-
tween two persons, for the purpos OF cheat
ing and den auting the United Sts,es in pro-
curing the p,ym. nj Of fals- claim.
| The alleged false clsim here 10 the one set
up by Mr.. Mos. The charge is that the de-
PENDANT, Col. Jenni.On and Mr.. Mos, entered
into ca ntinNion TOR the purpose % cheat
jig the United States, ~ imposing this fal ,e
claim upon il.
In order 70 CO ,vict the d. PENDANT on that
chsree, It 10 indisp n.ibly Iece~aiy that you
should be convinced by the testimony that
there was such combination or agreement
between these va psrtiea. The question
whehr In. i, PENDANT aided or intended u
aid in imposing fsl-e 81 i'm on the q. ve,n-
meDt. il another question, and different
from conspiracy. tie may hsve irt ended 10
all il " thOut catering into conspiracy.
rh"re murt have been . Combination, mn
agreement. IN understanding between them
that there vas . claim TO be p,e entssl, thst
il Was . fshe claim, and that they conbin-
ed, united for the Dnrpoae Of inipns,ng il
ON the G0vsrnu.,.t, ard thus Cheating snd
defrauding it.
think can take the Liberty o: .avinv 10
you that in the ahsenCe Of any tesiimo, wha
ever, that Jenni>on EVER in his lite Nv Mr..
Mos, and there beiTg no c aim that tia 50
Two men ever met. or ever exchanged cor
rspondence in writing, never even knew
each other peis ma IL. think msy sly
to you that You msy dismiss the charge Of
conspiracy from your consideration. There
is not sufiilient evidence 10 sustain the
charge Of conspiracy.
The there remains the Cth.r chsrye-the
one made here,-whch i. described in the
following language in the statute: ''Any
person who shall, for the purpose Of obtain
ing or aiding in obt.ining the approx al or
payment of a'y such (ialse) claim. make
NE or cause 10 he made or u-ei any false
bill, receipt, voucher, entry, roll. account,
claim, statement, certificate, affidavit or
deposition" ia the offence chsrrel
here ,-''knovinZ the SINE to contain any
las. or fraudulent statement or entry, or
who shall make or procure to he made, or
krOsirgy aivi-e the maii,g Of sny
inl-e oath To any fact, state
meLt or Ger ifiS:ste, voucher or entry, for
the purpe Of ohlslni' z or Of siiing to OBJ
tain any sppr; val ,r pay ment Of any claim
az lest the Cn:t.d States, r any depart
ment or officer III. root" shall be pun Led
&c.
This is the language Of the statute, and is
what Ia, t. be established to your sstIsfac-
ton a, having been done BY Gu. JssnisOn.
The charge here is divesiing il OF
ell the other matters that tbs defendant
made false affidavit in support and in aid
of false claim of Nj. Mua., sg ,inss the
Government of the United Staten.
Now, IRIS ruct yCu ttat it j, nece.s sry
that tie claim itfelf should be false claim;
in the next place, that the defendant should
have mace an affidavit; and in
next place in that sffi lavii
he should have stated facts which were
not true; and in the mex. place he should
have known that they we're NOT true; AID he
should have stat ID u em with the intent o!
aiding Mr.. M, in cheaiIn, and de rsusing
the Government. These element, sre n .ces-
cay for q convictirn. The cl aim should BE-
false. The defendant should hare made an
affidavit concerning that claim, he should |
have stated in that affidavit that which was
not true, and he should nave dOTe 70 wi h |
the intent and purpose Of aiding Mr.. Mos to |
cheat the Cow rnmebt out OF money.
perhaps might stop here, rs tt n, il the |
Law, and about all the Law Of this case, tut l |
think it proper mvself 10 take somr Gu, sid
Grafton Of what has been ehown in the ca.e.
You have all seen The claim, which i. satis-
f.c,orily shown 10 have been lr scented by
NJ. Moss sgsinst the United Sister, and the
affidavit Of the delendtnt has bsen read.
aod his statements beea commsnte upon
and are familiar to you.
The man reliance Of the Government 70
convict the defendant 10 upon the supposed
fol e statement - b the amount or value of
The loss sustained BY Mr.. Mos. in conse-
quence OF what might be called the "a d Of
the 18th of November, 1861; and second. in
the faisthocd Of the allegation made that
purl ,es Of the army Of the United States,
and il they were no, ''.rti, large art Of the
whole Of them we're sold, sn l, to Use n mod
ern Phrase, the money covered into the
Treasury. Tha, il the sub tance If VIA,
Jennistn swes,s to in that MATER.
As regard the value Of the goods the tes-
limOny On that subject il very inconclnsive
ia every respect. There is no preteis. Of
estify ing to the value Of the While or any
part Of the goods. There il no preterse Of
producing any exhibits or invoice or writ
en- statements Of the actnsl value Of the
.ood. nj any me. either just before or int
liter, or any number oil years brfore Or after
hey were taken.
The I'm ted Ststes has relied wholly en-
he eyid. nee Of one o. two men who claim
o have b en liar With the good. in the
tore and with The s,se Of the storr. That il
he cla.s Of evidence vi ich have permitted
o 60 to Won, and which I remarked ut the
inIr. War to be coosidered for what il was
" nth. 1t u vesy sure that no man going
o rtore and Looking at the goods in it,
niles he maxi some very accurate c.lcnla-
ions D: cl,re organizations. Can give very
ccnra,e ind. me mt a. To what the value OF
he goods Il. Nevertheless, inssmuch As
nat is the bat the Govtrsment has been
be to psodnce, it soo to You for what it i.
'orth. The discrepancy between the Wit
eres' and the amount sworn 70 BY Col. Jer-
icon il ve;y .a-.e. II ia for You 70 csnsider
ow much nearer correct they are than Jen- {
icon, and also what opportunities Jennisoo
id to know. q
II is further proper 10 ~ that oce Of
the witnesses nor Tie 0oveenmpst seated. on o
,oking II Mos hll, ~ lie psios pot down q
here we're not exoshitast prices. The phi q
. claimed By MOI. their ova witness s,a-
ID to be fair prices. 90 think you can l
artly charge to Jennisoa IN esroe o. nis- q
Ike - to the amount o. v.loe Of The good, q
} far - roacens The pricee.
the schedule ehoWn i cor
~ Bs,f n ~ In unistske0 ~ s,l-;fI