De Lemos v. United States

Decision Date03 January 1899
Docket Number767.
PartiesDE LEMOS v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

The indictment in this case reads as follows:

'United States of America.
'In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama.

November Term, A.D. 1896.

'The grand jurors of the United States, elected, impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire for the body of said Middle district of Alabama, upon their oaths do find and present 'That on the 28th day of May, A.D. 1895, in said Middle district of Alabama, before the finding of this indictment, and within the jurisdiction of said court, in the county of Lowndes, in said state, Ben De Lemos did unlawfully, feloniously, and falsely make and forge a certain obligation of the United States, to wit, a draft for money, to wit, for the sum of six hundred sixty-eight 40/100 dollars, drawn by an authorized officer of the United States, to wit, by D. A. Carpenter, United States pension agent, upon the assistant treasurer of the United States at New York, N.Y., and which said falsely made and forged obligation of the United States is in the words following, to wit:

''United States Pension Agency, No. 889049.
"Knoxville, Tenn., May 22, 1895. 189 .
"Assistant Treasurer of the United States, New York, N.Y.: Pay to the order of Thomas Cook six hundred sixty-eight 40/100 dollars, $668.40.
"D. A. Carpenter, Interior. "U.S. Pension Agent. "By J. M. Cates, Clerk.

"This check should be presented for payment within 90 days.'

'And on the back of said falsely-made obligation of the United States were indorsed the words and figures following, to wit:
''Pay to Ben De Lemos,
"Thomas his/X/mark. Cook, Payee.

"Paid June 1, 1895, New York.

"Witnesses:
"Wm. J. Anthony, Hayneville, Ala.
"J. S. Julian, Hayneville, Ala.
"Ben De Lemos.
"Pay Lehman Bros., or order, for collection, for account of Lehman-Durr Company, Jos. Goetter, V. Prest., Montgomery, Ala. Lehman Bros.'
'And the said obligation of the United States was then and there falsely made and forged, in this, to wit, that he, the said Ben De Lemos, did then and there falsely make and forge the name of the payee of the said draft, to wit, the words, 'Thomas Cook, his mark,' with the intent then and there and thereby to defraud, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.
'And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further find and present that at the time and place aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, Ben De Lemos did falsely make and forge a certain obligation of the United States, to wit, a certain draft of money, which said draft is set forth hereinabove, in first count of this indictment, and which said obligation he, the said Ben De Lemos, did falsely make and forge, in this, to wit, that the said Ben De Lemos did then and there falsely make and forge an indorsement upon the said draft in the following words, to wit, 'Pay to Ben De Lemos, Thomas Cook, his mark,' with the intent then and there and thereby to defraud, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.
'And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further find and present that at the time and place aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, in the county of Lowndes, in the state of Alabama, Ben De Lemos did unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously pass, utter, and publish as true and genuine a certain falsely-made and forged obligation of the United States, to wit, a certain draft drawn by D. A. Carpenter, an officer of the United States, authorized to draw the said draft, to wit, a United States pension agent, at Knoxville, in the state of Tennessee, which said draft was dated May 22, 1895, payable to the order of Thomas Cook, for the sum of six hundred sixty-eight 40/100 dollars, and which said draft was according in the tenor following: ''United States Pension Agency. No. 889049.
"Knoxville, Tenn., May 22, 1895. 189 .
"Assistant Treasurer of the United States, New York, N.Y.: Pay to the order of Thomas Cook six hundred sixty-eight 40/100 dollars, $668.40.
"D. A. Carpenter, Interior. "U.S. Pension Agent. "By J. M. Cates, Clerk.

"This check should be presented for payment within 90 days.'

'And he, the said Ben De Lemos, although he well knew the said draft and obligation was falsely made and forged, in this that the name of the payee thereof, to wit, the words 'Thomas Cook, his mark,' were forged in the indorsement thereon and thereto, yet he, the said Ben De Lemos, did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Prussian v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1931
    ...C. A.) 298 F. 369, and Alvarado v. United States (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 385. Cf. United States v. Jolly (D. C.) 37 F. 108; De Lemos v. United States (C. C. A.) 91 F. 497. Because of the conflict, the petition was not opposed by the government, although it suggested that the indictment might al......
  • Dell'Aira v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 18, 1926
    ...altering the weights stated in the bills of lading. In proving that charge there was no variance. The defendant cites De Lemos v. United States, 91 F. 497, 33 C. C. A. 655, and Gesell v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 283. Neither case is in point. The first case presented no question of......
  • United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 29, 1957
    ...the draft, amount to a forgery of the draft. Gesell v. United States, 8 Cir., 1 F.2d 283, is to the same effect. See also, De Lemos v. United States, 5 Cir., 91 F. 497. The appellant was shown to have obtained payment on the drafts fraudulently by using false, and falsely made, documents an......
  • United States v. Winters
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • March 31, 1925
    ...the following authorities: United States v. Jolly (D. C.) 37 F. 108; United States v. Albert (C. C.) 45 F. 552; De Lemos v. United States, 91 F. 497, 33 C. C. A. 655; Hamil v. United States (C. C. A.) 298 F. 369; Biskind v. United States (C. C. A.) 281 F. 47, 28 A. L. R. 1377, certiorari de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT