Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-04-06
prosecution to your satisfaction beyond .
reasonable doubt, the same a. all other una.
te,ial allegations contained in the indict-

reasonable doubt. the came A. all other ina.
teiial allegations contained IN the indicl-
Ment.
You. gentlemen, are To enquire under the
aud the evidence. aud No to the fret
did this defendant make or did he
cause TO be made. or did he present or cause
be presented Cor payment or for approx
al to any person or officer in the service Of
the uni'ed States. to- wit, TO the commits
sionet OF Indian affairs a claim against the
un,ted States? Ii you and he did not, then
as h the 1rst your Investigations
cease. But should you find that he did,
you are to enquire did he knor thai
The claim was false, or fictitious or traudu-
lent? .
According to this law, the Knowledge
that the claim is either talse or fictitious or
Is requisite to. and constitutes the
material part at the crime as charged in the
first two counts. When a party is accused
sn offense alleged t, have been done
with his knowledge" or "k~nowinRly"
done, the terms knowledge" or Knowing.
ly," when applied 10 the intent with which
an act is done, import only q knowledge
that the facts exist which bring the act " it'll.
10 the provisions Of the law. 1t does notre.
qaire any knowledge of the unlawfulness ct
the act, tor every one is presumed to know
the law, and ignorance of the law excuses
10 man.
B, the word knowing" as used in this
statute. and by the word "knowingly," as
used in the indictment, is meant the having
q certain and clear perception Of the fals;ty
OF The claim made, or of its being fictitious
or fraudulent.
Itis the doing of any Of these prohibited
things. with knowledge on the part of the
accused that, at the time, the claim was
either false or fictitious or fraudulent, as 10
he first count; or. as to the second count,
with the knowledge that any such papers
contained any fraudulent or fictitious state
ment or entry.
1t results, of course, from all this, that
any mere clerical errors or innocent mis-.
takes are not intended to be embraced with.
in this statute; for these could not come
under the head of guilty knowledge.
A mistake Of fact is mistake not caused
by the neglect of any legal duty or obliga-
ton on the part of the person making the
mistake; and 1t consists 10 an unconscious
ignorance Of the fact. Guilty knowledge
is the reverse Of this. This guilty knowl
edge, as has been stated, must be shown be.
You'd reasonable doubt; and it may be in-
terred from circumstances IN evidence.
A criminal intent is generally an element
OF crime; but every nan is presumed to
intend the necessary and legitimate conse-
Quenccs of what he knowingly does.
II in any given case under this law, q
man should present a claim against the
government. and he should know. at the
time, that the claim was false, fictitious or
fraudulent, what, in the nature and reason
OF things, should be the presumption
What should he be presumed to intend bv
knowingly making or presenting such a
false. fictitious or fraudulent clsimi Ii he
should succeed in getting such claim ap-
proved, would not the necessary conse
quence be to detraud the government? Ia
other words, how can q man present q
claim knowing it to be false, fictitious or
fraudulent. unless his intent be to defraud ?
Therefore it is. that every man is presumed
IN fact, to intend the necessary aud legri-
mate consequences of what he knowingly
does,
However, in the Law now before me for
xpo-ltl, n, ii every other act necessary to
:ons,i,ut. the crime be shown, and then the
miliv knowledge be proved, the crime be.
comes complete, although the government
should not be defrauded of q dollar.
Again, as to the second count. if q person,
for The purpose of obtaining or aiding to OBJ.
tain the approval or payment of such claim,
makes, uses, or causes to be made or used
any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll. ac-
count, claim, or certificate, knowing the
same to contain anv fraudulent or fictitious
statement or entry-,he guilty knowledge
consists in knowing that such papers contain
any fraudulent or fictitious entry or state
ment.
And here, also. if every other act essen
tial to the crime be shown, and then such
guilty knowledge be proved, the crime be-
comes complete, although the United States
should not be defrauded of . cent.
Moreover, where the guilty knowledge
exists it is sufficient if such claim be made
or presented for approval, even though ap.
proval be withheld; and 1t is also sufficient
it be presented 10 any one person or officer
in the service of the United States.
1t is charged in the Indictment that these al
legged ofenses were committed at the Indian
agency commonly known and designated as the
Crow Creek Indian agency, lin the second judicial
Of the territory of Dakota, and within the
jurisdiction Of this court.
As to the first W counts it will be sufficient
+ it be satisfactorily shown that the defend.
Lain at said agency, and from that place trans
or caused to be transmitted the same to
he commissioner of Indian affairs or to the Sec
'etary of the Interior at Washington city.
In the third count. the defendant Is charged
With the crime of enlightenment.
This Offense consists generally in the fraudu-
ent appropriation of personal property by a per-
on to whom 1t has been entrusted. The fraud
llent removing and secreting Of personal prop
rty with which the party has been entrusted, |
or the purpose of applying it to his own use, is |
mbeZzlement.
1t differs from larceny in this-that larceny
IMPLIES a wrongful taking from anOther's posses |
ion, but embe; Element denotes a wrongful an
,ropriatiOn of what is already In the wrOng-do-
possession.
The fraudulent appropriation may exist IL the
rustee or agent should secrete the property,
With a fraudulent intent to convert it to his own
Use.
An embezzlement Is in substance and essen.
tally a larceny, aggravated rather than pallfat.
ID by the violation OF a trust. Instead OF being.
Ike larceny, a trespass in which there IS a felo-
lious taking.
II there be no fraudulent appropriation or
fraudulent secretiDg with intent to deprive the
'wner OF his property. then 1t does not amount
o embezzlement.
All the material allegations of the Indictment
must be satisfactorily shown to you BY the
beyond any reasonable dOubt,-asI
before stated. You, gentlemen, ARE the exclusive
judges OF all the questions of fact in this case.
Is / remarked before. the duty Of the court Is in
the jury to state to them all matters OF
aW which the court thin IS necessary for their