Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/84/168.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:54:45+00:00

Document:
These statutes being in force, one Cook was indicted in the court below at October Term, 1864, for the embezzlement of funds held by him as paymaster in the army of the United States.
The indictment was filed on the 1st of November, 1864; and the first five counts charged acts of embezzlement on the 1st of May, the 6th of July, the 15th of October, the 12th of September, and the 20th of September, in the year 1862.
The defendant demurred to these counts, because it appeared upon the face of them, severally, that the crime charged was committed more than two years before the finding and filing of the indictment, and that the prosecution therefor was, before the finding and filing of the indictment, barred by the statute in such cases made and provided.
First. Whether it was competent for the defendant to take [84 U.S. 168, 170] exception, by demurrer, to the sufficiency of the first five counts of the indictment for the causes assigned.
Third. Whether the 32d section of the act of 1790, sometimes called the Crimes Act, applied to the case, and limited the time within which an indictment must be found for such an offence, or whether in regard to the period of limitation, within which an indictment was to be found, the case was governed by the act of 1804, or any other act limiting the prosecution of offences charged in the said five counts.
1. The demurrer should be sustained.
In all prosecutions for crime, the indictment must, upon its face, show that the defendant is charged with a crime. He is called to answer to the charge alleged against him, and to nothing else. And if follows if the indictment upon which a party is charged, do not, upon its face, in terms, embody a charge of crime, it is the duty of the court, at any stage of the prosecution, and in any form whatever in which the want of such charge or allegation shall be brought to its notice, to desist from further exercising its jurisdiction over the defendant. This defect of the indictment may be shown, on motion to quash, or on demurrer, or it may be noted by the court, su a sponte. On principle the inability of the court to proceed extends to all classes of defects, whether in the substance of the act alleged as crime, not being such in law; or by reason of exemption of the defendant, by law, from prosecution under the facts alleged against him. It is not the fact, but the allegation-the charge in the indictment, that gives jurisdiction. If, taking the fact as charged, no crime [84 U.S. 168, 171] for which the defendant is liable, under the law, to be prosecuted, tried, and punished is charged, does it matter what the reason is?
There is, no doubt, some diversity of opinion on the subject, in criminal practice, in respect to the manner in which this defence of limitation may be taken advantage of, but there surely need not be any delicacy or hesitation about requiring the prosecution, prim a facie, to bring itself by proper allegations within the law, so far as to show a prim a facie case of crime, legally punishable under the law. Numerous cases,5 including Commonwealth v. Ruffner,6 and Hatwood v. The State,7 affirm this view.
2. The limitation of the act of 1790, and not that of the act of 1804, or any other, governs the case.
A paymaster, or an additional paymaster in the army, intrusted with the funds of the government to be disbursed in the time of war, in the payment of the soliders in the field, is not in any proper sense, or in any recognized acceptation of terms, in their practical or legal sense, a revenue officer.
Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. C. H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, contra.
Founded on that provision, the indictment in this case contained six counts, charging that the defendant, as paymaster in the army, had in his custody for safe-keeping and disbursement, a large sum of public money, intrusted to him in his official character as an additional paymaster in the army, and that he, on the respective days , herein alleged, did unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously embezzle and convert the same to his own use. Such conversion is alleged in the first count, on the 1st of May, 1862, in the second on the 6th of July, in the third on the 16th of October, in the fourth on the 12th of September, in the fifth on the 20th of September, and in the sixth on the 15th of November, all in the same year. Service was made, and the defendant appeared and demurred to the first five counts, showing for cause, that it appears on the face of the indictment, and by the allegations of the said several counts, that the crime charged against him was committed more than two years before the indictment was found, and filed in court.
Support to these views is found in many cases where the precise point was well considered. Much consideration was given to the subject in the case of Commonwealth v. Hart,18 where it is said that the rule of pleading a statute which contains an exception is the same as that applied in pleading a private instrument of contract, that if such an instrument contains in it, first, a general clause, and afterwards a separate and distinct clause which has the effect of taking out of the general clause something that otherwise would be included in it, a party relying upon the general clause in pleading, may set out that clause only, without noticing the separate and distinct clause which operates as an exception, but if the exception itself is incorporated in the general clause then the party relying on 'the general clause must, in pleading, state the general clause together with the exception,' which appears to be correct, but the reasons assigned for the alternative branch of the rule are not quite satisfactory, as they appear to overlook the important fact in the supposed case that the exception itself is supposed to be incorporated in the general clause.
Where the exception itself is incorporated in the general clause, as is supposed in the alternative rule there laid down, then it is correct to say, whether speaking of a statute or [84 U.S. 168, 176] private contract, that unless the exception in the general clause is negatived in pleading the clause, no offence, or no cause of action, will appear in the indictment or declaration when compared with the statute or contract, but when the exception or proviso is in a subsequent substantive clause, the case contemplated in the enacting or general clause may be fully stated without negativing the exception or proviso, as a prim a facie case is stated, and it is for the party for whom matter of excuse is furnished by the statute or contract to bring it forward in his defence.
Both branches of the rule are correctly stated in the case of Steel v. Smith,20 which was a suit for a penalty, and may perhaps be regarded as the leading case upon the subject. Separate opinions were given by the judges, but they were unanimous in the conclusion, which is stated as follows by the reporter: 'Where an act of Parliament in the enacting [84 U.S. 168, 177] clause creates an offence and gives a penalty, and in the same section there follows a proviso containing an exemption which is not incorporated in the enacting clause by any words of reference, it is not necessary for the plaintiff in suing for the penalty to negative such proviso in his declaration.' All of the judges concurred in that view, and Bayley, J., remarked that where there is an exception so incorporated with the enacting clause that the one cannot be read without the other, there the exception must be negatived.
Few better guides upon the general subject can be found than the one given at a very early period, by Treby, C. J., in Jones v. Axen,22 in which he said, the difference is that where an exception is incorporated in the body of the clause he who pleads the clause ought also to plead the exception, but when there is a clause for the benefit of the pleader, and afterwards follows a proviso which is against him, he shall plead the clause and leave it to the adversary to show the proviso; which is substantially the same rule in both its branches as that given at a much more recent period in the case of Steel v. Smith, which received the unanimous concurrence of the judges of the court by which it was promulgated.
Apply those rules to the case before the court, and all difficulty is removed in answering the questions for decision. Neither an exception nor a proviso of any kind is contained [84 U.S. 168, 178] in the act of Congress defining the offence, and every ingredient of the offence therein defined is accurately and clearly described in the indictment. Nothing different is pretended by the defendant, but the contention is that the demurrer does not admit the force and effect of these allegations, because another act of Congress provides that no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or convicted of the offence unless the indictment for the same shall be found within two years from the time of committing the offence.
Argument to show that a demurrer to an indictment admits every matter of fact which is well pleaded is unnecessary, as the proposition is not denied, and inasmuch as the offence is well alleged in each of the counts to which the demurrer applies, it is difficult to see upon what ground it can be contended that the defendant may, by demurrer, set up the statute of limitations as a defence, it appearing beyond all doubt that the act defining the offence contains neither an exception nor a proviso of any kind.
Obviously the supposed error, if it be one, could not be corrected by a motion in arrest, for the reason suggested in those cases, and it is quite as difficult to understand the reason of the rule which affirms that a demurrer will work any such result, as it cannot be admitted that a demurrer is a proper pleading where it will have the effect to shut out evidence properly admissible under the general issue to rebut [84 U.S. 168, 179] the presumption of the supposed defect it was filed to correct.
Sometimes it is argued that the case of Commonwealth v. Ruffner,25 and Hatwood v. The State,26 adopt the same rule, but it is clear that neither of those cases supports any such proposition. Instead of that they both decide that it is not necessary to plead the statute of limitations in criminal cases; that the defendant may give it in evidence under the general issue, which undoubtedly is correct, as it affords the prosecutor an opportunity, where the statute contains exceptions, to introduce rebutting evidence and bring the defendant within one of the exceptions.
Accused persons may avail themselves of the statute of limitations by special plea or by evidence under the general issue, but courts of justice, if the statute contains exceptions, will not quash an indictment because it appears upon its face that it was not found within the period prescribed in the limitation, as such a proceeding would deprive the prosecutor of the right to reply or give evidence, as the case may be, that the defendant fled from justice and was within [84 U.S. 168, 180] the exception. 27 Nor is it admitted that any different rule would apply in the case even if the statute of limitations did not contain any exception, as time is not of the essence of the offence; and also for the reason that the effect of the demurrer, if sustained, would be to preclude the prosecutor from giving evidence, as he would have a right to do, under the general issue, to show that the offence was committed within two years next before the indictment was found and filed.
Sufficient has already been remarked to show what answer must be given to the first and second questions, which are both contained in the first interrogatory in the record, and it is only necessary to add in respect to the third, which is numbered second in the transcript, that the only statute of limitations applicable to the offence alleged in the indictment, is the one enacted in the 32d section of the original Crimes Act, which cannot, however, avail the defendant under the demurrer filed to the indictment.
(1.) That it is not competent for the defendant to take exception by demurrer to the first five counts of the indictment, for the cause assigned.
(2.) That the said five counts, and each of them, do allege and charge upon their face a crime or offence against the [84 U.S. 168, 182] defendant, for which he is liable in law to be put upon trial, convicted, and punished.
(3.) That the 32d section of the Crimes Act enacts the the only statute of limitation, applicable to the offence charged against the defendant, but that he cannot avail himself of it under the demurrer filed to the indictment.
[ Footnote 1 ] 9 Stat. at Large, 63.
[ Footnote 2 ] 1 Stat. at Large, 119.
[ Footnote 3 ] 2 Id. 290.
[ Footnote 4 ] Both of these questions were presented in the record as one, but as this court in its consideration of the matter divided the question into two parts, it is so here divided.
[ Footnote 5 ] State v. Bryan, 19 Louisiana Annual, 435; United States v. Watkins, 3 Cranch's Circuit Court, 441, 442, 550; People v. Miller, 12 California, 291; McLane v. State, 4 Georgia, 335; People v. Santvoord, 9 Cowan, 655.
[ Footnote 6 ] 28 Pennsylvania State, 259.
[ Footnote 7 ] 18 Indiana, 492.
[ Footnote 8 ] 9 Stat. at Large, 63.
[ Footnote 9 ] 1 Stat. at Large, 119.
[ Footnote 10 ] Ib.
[ Footnote 11 ] 5 Id. 322; Stimpson v. Pond, 2 Curtis, 502.
[ Footnote 12 ] 1 Stat. at Large, 119.
[ Footnote 13 ] Steel v. Smith, 1 Barnewall & Alderson, 99; Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 15th ed. 54.
[ Footnote 14 ] Rex v. Mason, 2 Term, 581.
[ Footnote 15 ] Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 15th ed. 54.
[ Footnote 16 ] Commonwealth v. Hart, 11 Cushing, 132.
[ Footnote 17 ] State v. Abbey, 29 Vermont, 66; 1 Bishop's Criminal Proceedings, 2d ed., 639, n. 3.
[ Footnote 18 ] 11 Cushing, 130.
[ Footnote 19 ] 2 Leading Criminal Cases, 2d ed. 12; Vavasour v. Ormrod, 9 Dowling & Ryland, 599; Spieres v. Parker, 1 Term, 141; Commonwealth v. Bean 14 Gray, 53; 1 Starkie's Criminal Pleading, 246.
[ Footnote 20 ] 1 Barnewall & Alderson, 99.
[ Footnote 21 ] Gurly v. Gurly, 8 Clarke & Finelly, 764; Minis v. United States, 15 Peters, 445; Stephen on Pleading, 9th Am. ed. 443.
[ Footnote 22 ] 1 Lord Raymond, 120.
[ Footnote 23 ] State v. Hobbs, 39 Maine, 212; People v. Santvoord, 9 Cowen, 660; State v. Rust, 8 Blackford, 195.
[ Footnote 24 ] State v. Bryan, 19 Louisiana Annual, 435; United States v. Watkins, 3 Cranch, Circuit Court, 550; People v. Miller, 12 California, 294; McLane v. The State, 4 Georgia, 340.
[ Footnote 25 ] 28 Pennsylvania State, 260.
[ Footnote 26 ] 18 Indiana, 492.
[ Footnote 27 ] United States v. White, 5 Cranch, Circuit Court, 60; State v. Howard, 15 Richardson (South Carolina), 282.
[ Footnote 28 ] Spieres v. Parker, 1 Term, 141.
[ Footnote 29 ] State v. Barker, 18 Vermont, 195.
[ Footnote 30 ] Commonwealth v. Tuck, 20 Pickering, 361.
[ Footnote 31 ] 1 East's Pleas of the Crown, 167; 2 Leading Criminal Cases, 2d edition, 9.
[ Footnote 32 ] 1 Bishop's Criminal Proceedings, 2 ed., 405, 632, 635, 639; Steel v. Smith, 1 Barnewall & Alderson, 99; State v. Abbey, 29 Vermont, 66; 1 American Criminal Law, 6th ed., 378, 379; 1 Wat. Archbold's Criminal Practice, ed. 1860, 287; Rex v. Pearce, Russell & Ryan, Crown Cases, 174; Rex v. Robinson, Ib. 321; Rex v. Baxter, 2 East's Pleas of the Crown, 781; Same Case, 2 Leach's Crown Cases, 4th ed. 578; 1 Gabbett's Criminal Law, 283.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.