Year: 1873

denied. The fraud consisted in obtaining


a pension for sic when Martha had but four


children. The pensioner asserts he 6eiieU-


ed she had six. With but little modifica-
ton this simple issue is nearly all you will


have ultimately to determine.


| We shall refer to some of the leading
| facts, more in illustration of and to apply


legal principles than to argue their credi-


bility OF general persuasiveness in favor OF


or against the theories of the government


or the prisoner All will be briefly and
generally alluded to only.


No attention will be paid to the numer-
Gus collateral issues which have been


much discussed. Whether Boyd filled up


all, Tart, or any Of muster roll given
| in evidence, whether Payne is fully or


partially impeached, whether in better cir


cumstances defendant might have proved


that he believed that some, now to us un-


known, Sam. Elliott died and left children,


Of which Boyd might have been guardian,


and various other similar facts upon which
/ spirited issue has beeu taken, and upon


which so much of the time Of the court


has been expended, will not be con-


sidered. They are but inconsiderable
| items in the great mass of testimony


and may be decided either way without
| materially efeeting the one simple ques-
| ton in the case-did the prisoner kao,O
| the false voucher was fraudulent? No


mode has yet been devised to shorten


these frequently unimportant discussions.
| And if the Government in its case gives
| testimony, however unimportant if it is
| admissible at all, it is the right of the de-
| fendant to contradict it and reap all the
benefit which success may give him in the
effort. No complaint, therefore, is made OF
such attempts in this case. And we refer
| to them at all only to recall your attention
| to the only real question for your determi-
| nation and to caution you not to suffer the
leading issue to be buried under bulk Of
other matters which may be found one


way Or the other, and still have it legally
| and logically quite unaffected.


With this simple issue before you, we
| think it will aid your investigations to
suggest the division of the testimony into


two distinct departments first, that in
troduced to show the facts connected with
| the making and presentation of the false
voucher mentioned in the Indictment,


and, second, that showing other crimes


and the facts connected with them. Both


knowledge. The first class only can be


considered for proof that the defendant


made and presented the voucher and that
it was false.


1t has already been said that, about the
making, presentation and falsity of the


voucher there is no contest. That there is
criminal is beyond question. That your


Government has been robbed and its lib


erality towards the surviving widows and


children of our deceased soldiers grossly
abused by some one, is evident enough.


That Boyd was the man who made and
presented the documents which contained


the falsehood by which the wrong was ac-
complished, you will have no difficulty in
deciding. Your labor commences only
when you meet his denial that he had any
knowledge Of or was priUy to the fraud.


In this connection your attention should


be challenged to the fact that although it


be conceded that Martha and Wallace did
know the contents of the several af1idavts
they made, such fact may be quite true, and
still, if the prisoner also knew or was
priUy to the fraud, he is equally
guilty. The question whether these two


negroes originated of their own cunning


this wrong is mainly material as going


to the other fact of Boyd's knowledge.


The theory is that they gave him the infor-
nation upon which he acted and belieUing


it, in ignorance that they were deceiving


him, he ianocentLy made the claim for too


theory, then, it is legitimate TO enquire
whether they told him there were four or
six children, although whether he believ-


ed it or not is different question, the
enquiry is, nevertheless, pertinent and
important as to the fact of his knowledge.
They both swore they never gave the


number or names of more than the four


children which, in fact, are all Martha
had. That until the Government agents
informed them, they did not know the
claim was for six and that if their affida-
Wits stated differently, they had not been
correctly interpreted to them. That they


could not read themselves and relied


upon Boyd and his assistants.


The face of the papers, the filling up III
different ink, the writing over the seal, the
spelling and other features are urged as
corroborating the testimony. Inman,
colored man, KelsO, a justice OF the peace,
before whom they were sworn, on one oc.
casion swore the affidavits were read and
Martha declared she understood them and
said she had six children. Petit, before
whom she was also sworn, with less posi-
tiveness:but still substantially, says the af-
fidayit was read and copied in her pres


ence. The evidence is in direct conflict
and did we believe that the whole case


rested upon whether the jury believed the
one set or the other, we would submit


some legal considerations, bearing upon


the credibility of the parties. But as be-


fore said, you may be in doubt as to this
fact whether Martha and Wallace knew OF


the fraud and stated there were six chill


dren and voluntarily took the false oaths;


and yet if you believe that, from all the
| other facts, this is sufficient proof to show
Boyd knew what they sWora to was false,
| then your verdict may be based upon it
| without waiting to determine the precise


balance of credibility between these oppos-
| ing oaths.


An importvnt feature in the evidence 60
| ing to show the knowledge of Boyd and
| tho intention with which he a,tpd is
| found in one Of his own affidavits. He
swore these six children were of his otCn
| kno,cIedge those of Martha Upton. He


names them all. You will take into con-
sideration whether this oath was taken by


an intelligent or ignorant man, whether


he knew the requirements of the law and
fully appreciated the crime of swearing
| that he kaetO facts which he did not know.
An ignorant man like Inman could swear
without moral criminality to mhat he did


not know, merely because another had in
1 IL xr-aS p.,t fho