State v. Hawkins

• Decision Date: 16 January 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 114
• Parties: STATE v. HAWKINS <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

18 S.W. 114

STATE v. HAWKINS et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 16, 1892.

Appeal from chancery court, Cannon county; B. M. WEBB, Chancellor.

Suits in equity by the state of Tennessee against J. B. Hawkins and others to set aside on the ground of fraud an allowance of pension. The actions were consolidated. Defendants had a decree on the verdict of a jury, and the state appeals. Affirmed.

Murray & Spurlock, for the State. Jones & Houston and Jas. H. Cummins, for appellees.

LURTON, J.

The cases of State v. J. B. Hawkins and William McMahan, and State v. J. B. Hawkins and J. B. Smith, were consolidated and ordered to be heard together. A decree of the September term, 1890, recites that the attorneys for the state demanded a jury to try the issues of fact to be submitted, and that a jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try the issues tendered and a true verdict render. The bills of the state alleged in substance: (1) That an application was made to the comptroller for pensions under the act of 1887 by the defendants J. B. Smith and William McMahan. That J. B. Smith represented in his application and affidavits accompanying the same that he had lost the use of both of his legs while engaged in actual service of the Confederate government, and had continued without the use of his legs ever since; that defendant McMahan, in his said application and accompanying affidavits, alleged that he had lost both of his eyes while engaged in the same service, and had remained blind since. (2) That the representations in said applications were in fact wholly false and untrue, and that the said Smith had not in fact lost the use of his legs, nor the said McMahan the use of his eyes. (3) The bills further charged that the defendant Hawkins, as chairman of the county court of Cannon county, did indorse upon said applications and certify to the comptroller that he had examined said applicants for pensions, and also the witnesses making the affidavits in support of the applications, and from his said examination the applicants came within the provisions of the act, and were entitled to the pensions as provided by law; that at the time of making this certificate the said Hawkins knew the same was false, and that Smith still had the use of his legs and McMahan the use of his eyes. (4) That, in addition to these false certificates, said Hawkins personally presented said applications and affidavits to the comptroller, and represented to that officer that of his own knowledge he knew the facts stated in the application and affidavits to be true. (5) The bills allege that by reason of these false and fraudulent applications, certificates, indorsements, and representations a pension had been granted to each of the applicants, and $825 had been thus fraudulently obtained from the state by defendant Smith, and $1,325 by defendant McMahan. (6) That said Hawkins had been induced to aid said fraudulent applications, and to make false certificates and representations, upon an agreement and understanding that he was to receive a pecuniary compensation out of the fund to be derived thereby. The bills sought decrees against Smith and Hawkins and McMahan and Hawkins for the sums thus obtained. The issues of fact submitted to the jury involved the truth or falsity of every question of fact presented by the issues made in the pleadings. Upon evidence submitted the jury found that the applications and accompanying affidavits were true; that the certificate made by defendant Hawkins was true; that the affidavits presented by said Hawkins to the comptroller were true, and not false, as charged. They also found that said Hawkins had received nothing to influence him to sign the certificates or procure the pensions. A decree in the...