, 1879-06-08
performed, Or to obtain payment for stone By

performed, or to obtain payment for stone
means OF false or oyermcasurement.
Further, in this connection, say to you thai
when ono Or more persons have entered into
conspiracy to defraud the United Ssates, IN
other person who knowingly and inteptionall
aids or aoets either Of the conspirators In carry
lng out the original conspiracy makes himself
eo1Gaotfe, party to such conspiracy, and, if sue
guilty as n co-consplrator. It the al
legged conspiracy was formed between til
defendants, Mueller and Mullett, as claimed
3t time prior to the statue, and It the o1hc
defendants, namely, Mills, Burling, Prussing
ana keed, were not parties thereto at any tim
before The statute, their connection with sucl
conspiracy mnst be proved in order to max
tnem co~conspirarors by evidence Of facts dis
tlnet from, and independent Of, any facts trans
spring Ct a time prior to the statute, and witt
nhlch they had no connection, and proof o
1acts occurring before the statute, with which
they had nothing to do, should not be used te
eon1ect them with such conspiracy, IT any e1
lsteo, aG time subsequent to the stutute.
! do not understand It to be claimed that tht
defendants, Mueller and Mullett, entered into
conspiracy for the making OF the contract o
September, 1872, to furnish stone for thi:
g; nulldlng; out, as 1 have stated, it is claimed
tnat the alleged conspiracy was at some tine
subsequent formed between those parties, and II
claimed that the cutting contract, and the saw
mE contract, and the payment by the half-inch
ano tfe transactfons and controversies in con.
/ ASNeAoA "1kA SkOuE1 ECuSklEuLEt QIQC0G
other things. evidence of the
! EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONSPIRACY. -.
Ihese claims are each aud all contested by
counsel Tor the defendant Mueller, and you
DOUBTLESS fully understand what are the grounds
taken and points urged In support Of and
agalnst the claim Of the prosecution Upon this
nranca Of tne Ease; and It is for you to say, in
the Light OF all the evidence, whether it has
occn proven that the alleged conspiracy existed
between those parties; and whether either or
any OF the defendants ever became parties to
such conspiracy, II it did exist. I leave the
termination.
NOW, gentlemen, recurring to the propositions
Which l stated in the beginning as the Two pri-
mary questions Of fact in this case, you are to
INQUIRE INTO and decide whether ut or about the
time stated in the Indictment there existed such
conspiracy as is alleged to which the defend
AUS, Or ant OF them, we're parties, and whether,
II such conspiracy as is alleged was formed,
we're any or either Of the acts charged in the
Malvtment as done to carry into effect such con-
to effect this object? This being criminal case
a dlHereht state Of facts must ba established
than would be required IL q civil action inyov-
1nE question OF mere civil liability. As baye
criminal intent. Was it the design and intent
ol these parties to defraud the Government!
Did the defendants form or become parties to
criminal combination to cousummate the alleged
1rands and In settling this question it. is not
breach Of the contract which the defendant
Mueller made with the Government.
It is not sufficient to show mere
neglect Of duty or the exercise Of
er1oneons e Judgment on the part OF the defend
ants N their respective positions in connection
With the construction Of this building. 1t is not
sufficient to show merely that there was in
competency, or negligence, or failure In duty,
because all these may be. under certain circnm:
stances Stances consistent With innocent intent. Al
though You may have good reason to believe,
gentlemen, from the evidence, that much
GOVERNMENT MONEY HAS BEEN sQuANpEREp
In building this Custom-House: and although
you may have good reason to believe that the
work could have been more efficiently done and
that better material could have been furnished,
yet this being q criminal prosecution. and
I the ts charge 6eipg .+ that Of eoasprse
further, and that you be convinced from
the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt,
that there was such combination, such COM
mon and criminal design and intent on the part
OF the defendants. as is charged, coupled with
acts done to accomplish The alleged franu, in
order to convict. 1t is proper, however, iu de-
termining the question Of intent, to take into
consideration any breach of contract, negligence,
or derclction Of duty, If any such be proved.
tain portions Of the evidence relied upon by the
aud which. 1t Is claimed, tend J
to establish the charges in this indict- !
ment; and also portions of the evidence !
it is claimed, tend to disprore those |
charges. You will understand that BIZ such ref
erence to particular parts Of the evidence it is
not intended to exclude or divert from your
Thich particular reference mag not have been
made, for It is your duty III considering the case
10 take into account all Of the evidence as It |
bears upon the various branches Of this contro~