Omaha daily bee., 1882-11-17
U. S. COURT
The Motion to QuaSh the Hull
Indictment Overruled.
Matters in and About
the Courts.

A great deal of interest has been
manifested In the case Of the United
States vs.. ID. G. Hull, Of Lincoln, and
as it came up before tho court at the
present term on a motion to quash
the indictment, the opinion of Judge
McCrary delivered Wednesday, will be
Of interest.
In the United States circuit court for
the district of Nebraska.
The United States va. Dwight G,
Hull.
Opinion of tho court on motion to
quash the Indictment, delivered BE-
Judge McCrary, November 10, 1882.
We have considered the motion to
quash the indictment in this cas- and
l am now ready to state the conclu-
sions arrived at.
Tha indictments In the case-there
seem to be two of them-charge, in
substance, frat, the making of n false
claim against the government of the
United States, and, second, aiding
another person to obtain payment OF
false claims against the United States.
There arc u number of counts in the
indictment, but I believe they are all
conceded to besubhtantially alike, and
therefore it will be sufficient to con-
slider the first count as q fair specimen
of the counts. This, after certain al.
legations, setting forth that Mr.. Hull
was custodian of the United States
court house and postofioe at Lincoln,
and certain other allegations rather
Introductory In their character, not
necessary to be repeated, proceeds
thereafter to say that defendant did
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
make and cause to be made and pre-.
sent and caused to be presented to an
officer of the treasury department OF
the United States of America, q yer.
tain false, fraudulent and fictitious
claim and account against the United
| States of America for payment and
approval for 806 yards best quality
| Napier mating, at eighty cenru per
yard. alleged IN said ccount to have
been purchased from one Albert nj.
Davis, for the use of said building, at
q price of $244. 80, which said claim
was false, fictitious and fraudulent, as
said Dwight G.. Hull we'll know, and
that said goods were eve delivered
by said Albert M. Davis, at the price
named at the place named. Then fol
lows tho allegations that the defend
ant, for the purpose of aiding to OBJ.
tain payment of said claim, unlaw-
fully and feloniously did make and
cause to be made and used q certain
false bill, voucher, receipt or certii'
cute of account, which is copied in the
indictment; followed by the allegation
that said voucher, receipt, bill or GER
tificate was, and is, false, fictitious
and fraudulent as to the cost or price
of said mating, as the said Dwight
G. Hull well knew, ''and the grand
Jury aforesaid, upon the oaths afore
said present that the said Albert M,
Davis never received tho sum O.
$344 for said mating from the United
States or any other person."
There Is q very distinct and sufi
Client allegation of the two offenses t.
which I have referred, namely: First
the making and presenting of a false
claim, and, second, aiding another tt
obtain the payment of q false claim.
We are of the opinion that these
offenses as here changed, come clearly
within the provisions of section 5,438,
revised statutes of the United States,
which provides that "everY person
who makes or causes to be
made, or presents or cause
to be presented for payment
or approval to or by any person:
or officer in the civil, naval or military
service of the United States, any claim
upon or against the government OF The
United States, or any department OF
officer thereof, knowing said claim tt
be false, fictitious or fraudulent, OIL
who, for the purpose Of obtaining, OIL
aiding to obtain tho payment OF ap
proval of said claim, makes, uses OF
causes to be used or made, any falls,
bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account
claim, certificate, affidavit or dsposi
ton, knowing the same to contain aa)
fraudulent or fictitious STATEMENT OF
entry, shall be punished, a., &C."
1t is commended by ,!u lsel for do
PENDANT that this section Of tho stat
ute does not describe la general terms
tho offenss charged in the indictment,
but, as l understand the counsel, they
do insist that the statute applies only
to q party who presents a cleim on hi
own behalf, and does not apply to {
person who presents a false certificate
or voucher on behalf of some Other
person, or In the name of some Other
person. We are unable to concur In
this view of the statute. 1t appears
on the face of the statute that 1t is in
tended to apply to a case where the
person makes, or cause to be made, .
false statement of this character
"Where a person causes to be pre-
sonted such false statement, or where
he obtains or is guilty OF aiding tc
obtain the payment or approval ol
any such false claim" The US,
of this language clearly implies tai
statue Is intended to apply to a cas-,
where the attorney or agent, or officer
of an other person undertakes to get {
claim which is false and fraudulent
allowed in his own behalf, or in be
half of sny other party; otherwis,
the language ''aiding TO obtain" woulC
have no meaning whatever. 1t is {
matter of history that this Legislation
was intended mainly, if not wholly
to put a stop 10 the practice which
was said to prevail at the CITY o
Washington and elsewhere, wher,
claim agents and lobbyists, acting OF
behalf If others were in the sam,
habit OF manufacturing false anC
fictitious test mony-pension agents
and other agents of that character
We arc clearly Of the opinion there II