Carter v. Woodring
| Decision Date | 02 August 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 6904.,6904. |
| Citation | 92 F.2d 544 |
| Parties | CARTER v. WOODRING, Secretary of War. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Oberlin M. Carter, pro se.
Leslie C. Garnett, U. S. Atty., and Howard Boyd, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and GRONER, Associate Justices.
In this case the plaintiff, Oberlin M. Carter, filed a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia against the defendant Harry H. Woodring, as Secretary of War of the United States.
The plaintiff in his bill states that on December 2, 1897, he was a Captain in the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, and from the year 1884 until July, 1897, he was stationed by order of the Chief of Engineers of the Army at Savannah, Ga., in charge of certain harbor improvements then being constructed by the United States at Savannah Harbor and Cumberland Sound, Georgia and Florida, under the provisions of acts of Congress; that during all the time that the plaintiff was in charge of such improvement he caused the work in said district to be performed strictly in accordance with the laws of the United States and with various contracts with contractors providing for the performance of the work; that from time to time as moneys became due to the contractors he issued vouchers to them for the exact amount lawfully due to them under their contracts and for no more; and in every respect served honestly, faithfully, and uprightly in the performance of his duties.
Plaintiff further states that in October, 1896, plaintiff let two certain contracts with the Atlantic Contracting Company for said improvements strictly in accordance with law and with the approval of his superior officers; that afterwards when these contracts were partially performed plaintiff was relieved of duty as supervising engineer in said district and became Military Attaché at the American Embassy in London, England, and also Army Engineer member of the Nicaragua Canal Commission.
Plaintiff avers that he performed his duties as engineer in charge of said improvements so successfully that the same was generally regarded as a triumph of engineering skill and brought universal approval of all engineers to the plaintiff who continued to enjoy the confidence of his superior officers and a reputation for skill in his profession and for honor among his fellow citizens.
Plaintiff alleges that after he was relieved of work as Supervising Engineer aforesaid, the work of completing the improvement was assigned by the Chief of the Corps of Engineers to a successor who for some reason unknown to plaintiff was possessed of animosity and enmity toward plaintiff, and who conspiring with other officers secretly manufactured charges of dishonesty and improper conduct on the part of the plaintiff in the conduct of said work; that as a result of this conspiracy charges were preferred against plaintiff under army orders and a general court-martial was convened at Savannah, Ga., pursuant to the order of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army of January 12, 1898, to hear and decide such charges. The court-martial consisted of thirteen officers of the United States Army named in the bill, composed of one General, who was presiding judge of the court, one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, five Majors, and four Captains of the United States Army.
Plaintiff avers that the presiding judge of the court was an enemy of plaintiff and through the influence of plaintiff's successor and his coconspirators many members thereof were appointed who were unfriendly to plaintiff; and certain of the members of the court-martial were instructed by their superior officers to secure his conviction regardless of the evidence which might be produced before the court martial; that the Assistant Judge Advocate General of the United States Army was assigned as Judge Advocate to present the charges against plaintiff before the court martial; that in violation of his oath he secretely conspired with the presiding officer of the court martial to secure the conviction of plaintiff and in pursuance of said conspiracy the private papers of plaintiff were seized and presented to said court-martial; that court records were abstracted from the United States Engineer's office so that the same could not be procured by plaintiff as proof to contradict the false charges made against plaintiff; that witnesses were by threats and coercion of said conspirators prevented from appearing and testifying on behalf of plaintiff; that evidence known to be false by the Judge Advocate and the presiding judge was offered against plaintiff; that as the result of such conspiracy plaintiff did not at the hands of the court-martial receive a fair trial, nor was the finding of the court-martial made in accordance with the law or rules and regulations of the United States Army; that the charges presented against plaintiff before said court-martial consisted of four charges relating to disconnected matters involved in the program of the work upon said improvements, all designed and tending to prejudice any impartial members of the court-martial; that the finding of the court-martial was a result of said conspiracy to the effect that the plaintiff was guilty of all the charges presented against him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. Lovett
...§ 1522; 64 Stat. 128 (1950), 50 U.S.C.A. § 653. 5 Dynes v. Hoover, 1858, 20 How. 65, 61 U. S. 65, 15 L.Ed. 838; Carter v. Woodring, 1937, 67 App.D.C. 393, 92 F.2d 544, certiorari denied, 1937, 302 U.S. 752, 58 S. Ct. 283, 82 L.Ed. 582; United States ex rel. Wessels v. McDonald, D.C.E.D.N.Y.......
-
Anthony v. Hunter
...with the pages in the record of trial by the General Court-Martial. 2 Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13, 25 L.Ed. 538; Carter v. Woodring, 67 App.D.C. 393, 92 F.2d 544, certiorari denied, 302 U.S. 752, 58 S.Ct. 283, 82 L.Ed. 582; McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49, 22 S.Ct. 786, 46 L.Ed. 1049; Unit......
-
Adams v. Hiatt
...164 F.2d 722. 22 In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 66 S.Ct. 340, 90 L.Ed. 499; Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13, 25 L.Ed. 538; Carter v. Woodring, 67 App.D.C. 393, 92 F.2d 544, certiorari denied 302 U.S. 752, 58 S.Ct. 283, 82 L.Ed. 582; Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U.S. 304, 311, 67 S.Ct. 313, 91 L.Ed. 23 E......
-
Burns v. Wilson
...was unassailable even by the most extreme allegations of prejudice, unfairness, and use of perjured testimony. See Carter v. Woodring, 67 App.D.C. 393, 92 F.2d 544. Thus, up to December 6, 1937, when the Court denied certiorari, 302 U.S. 752, 58 S.Ct. 283, 82 L.Ed. 582, in the case last cit......