Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-10

any alsA bill. any false receipt, voucher,
rai. accoant, claim, anv fal-e certificate, al.
Sasvi, or depesition,-kaosiag the same to
any fraudulent or fictitious state |
sAeas cr entsys-eyery person 90 offending
cssami,s \ criminal offence" 1nd the sec.
ssrs eaaat Of the indictment has reference to |
saSs specific offence last read and as it il
sisted in the secand part Of the statute.
Now geauemen, under this Law, aud un
der sae indictment, you are to enquire from
sae evidences
Fira, did this defendant make or did he
cause TO be nade, or did he present or cause
10 be presented for paymentor for approval,
to any pereoo or officer in the service of the
United State. to.wit: to the commissioner
Of Inaian affairs, or 70 the auditor of the
treasury departmental OF to the comptroller Of
the treasury department, this specified claim
against the United States, kaoeiag such
claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent?
The defendant admits that he did forward
the two copies, THE original copies in evil
dence here,) TO the departments at Wash
ington. This isa preservation Of the claim,
whether he sent il BY mail or delivered il
in person. It is admitted he did present
that claim to the departments named. It is
alleged in the indictment, ~ you have
heard it read, that this clain, called voucher
No. 4. it is alleged say, that this claim,
called voucher No. 4, vas false, 6ctitious
and fraudulent, and that the defendant knew
it was such. First it is alleged that the four
Indian chiefs named, did not then aud there
receiye from the defendant the said aum Of
$24S.25 Is in the eaid voucher, claim OF
receipt, is stated and set forth, and thai
the defendant did not then and there deliver
to them the said sum Of money. The defen-
dant says he did deliver the said suu of
money to them % dated 10 the receipt. This
is for you to enquire about. Did the defen.
dant then and there deliver to them the sun
of money a he certified he did? Secondly,
it is alleged in substance that the body Of
the certificate of Antoine Leclaire on this
voucher, receipt or claim, vas also false,
fictitious aud fraudulent. This is for you to
enquire. Thirdly, it 10 alleged in substance
that the body Of the certificate Of John E.
Richardson and Henry Brocknan as get
forth on said voucher or claim was also false,
fictitious and fraudulent. You are 10 exam.
inc and determine. 5
Again under the Law and under the second
count of the indictment, you are to enquire
from the evidence this to.wit: Did the de-
PENDANT for Tue purpose of obtaining, or
aiding to obtain, the approval or payment
of the said claim of $248.25, knowingly
make. use, or cause to be made or used any
false receipt or any false certificate or any
false voucher, or any false claim or account,
knowing the same to contain any fraudulent
or fictitious statement or entry? In the
second count it is substantially alleged that
the written receipt, on the said voucher No.
4, that the certificate Of Antoine LeClaire
on the same, that the certificate of Richard.
son and Brockman and the certif cate of the
defendant on the same, are each and all of
them false, fictitious and fraudulent. l will
now read to you this voucher No. 4, (court
here reads voucher No. A.
Ia this true, this first part? Did the In.
dians receive the S24S.25? All the wit.
nesses say that there was not any money
paid that day in that office to these Indians.
IL the certificate OF Antoine Leclaire true?
Who caused Antoine Leclaire to make it ?
Who got him to sign it? Is it true? Was
he present? Did he truly and fairly ex-
plain to these Indians that receipt, aud did
he witness the actual delivery of the money ?
Is this certificate of Richardson and Brock
man true? Who procured them to make il?
Who got them to do it? Is this true: 1--WE
certify, on honor, that we were ,resent and
witnessed the delivery Of the above money 2"
Is that true? Has Brockman sworn that
he saw that money delivered ? Has Richard.
son sworn that he saw that money deliver.
ed, OF was there? From all this evidence
on the trial they both swear thev did not.
The facts are altogether for you. Did Brock
man swear on the stand that he saw this
money or any part of the money paid? Did
he swear even, he was in the store, when as
he alleged some money was paid? So witt
the other witnesses. These are all facts for
your consideration. L. this certificate of
the defendant true? Was it true: II GER
tify, on honor, that / have actually, this
23rd day of June, 1876, delivered 10 the
above named chiefs the money a. stated in
this certificate. Henry F. Livingston"
Has he sworn OF the stand that he actually
delivered the money TO them ? The defend.
ant has not stated in my hearing that there
was any money given. II he has you will
recollect it. These are all questions of fact
which you are Obliged, BY your oath, to to-
vestigate and to determine. The allegation
of the defendant il, that although be was
not present, yet that a mar by the name Of
E. E, Hudeon did pay the money.
Now gentlemen Of the jury, under the
law hatI have before me and which I an
bound to expound conscientiously, to the
best of my knowledge; under this Law, even
q just claim, against the United State can.
not be obtained BY the making OF using Of
any false certificate, or any false voucher, o.
any false receipt, or other false written state.
ment. All false papers are forbidden even
when employed to obtain a just claim ; and
if the party kno~s any such paper TO be
false, OF knows that it contains any fictitious
or fraudulent entry Or statement such party
commits . criminal offense.
The Indians who were Witnesses for the
prosecution, and the defendant himself, on
the stand concur and admit that no money
was that day, in the Office o this defendant,
paid to those Indians. The defendant on the
stand says that instead Of paying the money,
as his certificate declares he did, that he
gave them written orders on one E. E. Hud.
son ; and that be wass not present as any
payment BY Hudson Of the money
to the Indiana. l an bound to charge you
gentlemen, that the mere giving Of the or
ders to the Indians BY the defendant was
not payment Of itself.