United States v. Bradford

Decision Date23 December 1905
Docket Number2,413.
Citation148 F. 413
PartiesUNITED STATES v. BRADFORD et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

W. W Howe, U.S. Atty., and Rufus E. Foster, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Farrar Jonas & Kruttschnitt, for defendant James L. Bradford.

Frank L. Richardson, for defendant William H. Wright.

Walter H. Rogers, for defendant George Baldey.

On February 26, 1904, the grand jury found and returned into court an indictment against James L. Bradford, William H Wright, George Baldey, and Francis Lowry, Jr. The indictment contained three counts. The first count charges, among other things, that the four defendants, 'on the ninth day of August, A.D., one thousand nine hundred and two, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, * * * did unlawfully knowingly, willfully, and feloniously conspire, combine, and confederate and agree together and among themselves to defraud the United States of certain certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, of the value of five thousand dollars, and of the title and possession of public lands of the United States and within the United States of great value, to wit, five thousand dollars, upon which said scrip could by law be located, by unlawfully and fraudulently procuring and converting to their own use and benefit certain certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, of the United States, provided and to be issued in any by virtue of the provisions of a certain act of Congress of the United States approved June second, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight (here setting out the title of the act), which certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, were to be issued in satisfaction of the following described land claims of one William Miller, namely (here setting out the land claims), which said private land claims were the property of the said William Miller, who died in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-five and after his said death were the property of his heirs and legal representatives residing beyond the limits of the state of Louisiana, and which said certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, when issued in satisfaction of said claims, would also be, and were, the property of the said heirs and legal representatives of the said William Miller; that thereafter, to wit, on the ninth day of August, A.D., one thousand nine hundred and two, in the city of New Orleans * * * to effect the object of said conspiracy, combination, and confederation and agreement, the said (here naming the defendants) did unlawfully, knowingly, feloniously, and fraudulently apply in the name of one John C. McCants, a person unlawfully interposed by and on behalf of the said (here naming defendants), as the pretended administrator of the succession of the said William Miller, deceased, to and receive of and from the United States Surveyor General of the District of Louisiana at New Orleans five of said certain certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, issued under said act of Congress of June 2, 1858 (11 Stat. 294, c. 81), and described particularly as follows (here describing the certificates); that thereupon and thereafter said (here naming the defendants) falsely and fraudulently caused said certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, to be illegally sold at private sale by said pretended administrator, John C. McCants, the person unlawfully interposed for their benefit, as aforesaid, and received the proceeds thereof, and converted them to their own use; that thereafter the said certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, were located on the public lands of the United States, and the United States was deprived and defrauded of the title and possession of said public lands, and especially of the following described public lands in the New Orleans land district of Louisiana, to wit (here describing the lands), and the United States was also left exposed to claims in said premises for said certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, or their value, by the heirs and legal representatives of said William Miller, deceased, the facts in reference to the said pretended administration of the succession of said William Miller being, and well known to the said (here naming the defendants) to be, that said William Miller left the state of Louisiana in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, and never thereafter resided in said state; that he died in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-five in the city of Cincinnati, state of Ohio, where he resided at the time of his death; that his succession was opened in said city of Cincinnati, and his last will and testament, which he had left, was duly probated there, and his heirs and legatees put in possession and his succession closed; that he left no property and no debts in the state of Louisiana, and his succession owed no debts, taxes, local assessments, or charges of any kind in the state of Louisiana, and yet, on the eleventh day of March, A.D., one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, the said (here naming the defendants) did apply to the honorable the Sixteenth Judicial District Court for the parish of Washington, state of Louisiana, in the name of said John C. McCants, a person unlawfully interposed for their benefit, for letters of administration on the estate of said William Miller, deceased, and for the appointment of an attorney for absent heirs, and for an appraisement and inventory, falsely and fraudulently alleging and causing it to be alleged in said application that the said William Miller was domiciled and died in said parish of Washington, state of Louisiana, and that his succession was largely in debt, and owed state, parish, and municipal taxes and local assessments and charges; that in said proceedings the said (here naming the defendants) caused the said claims of said William Miller for certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, under said act of Congress (chapter 81) aforesaid of the public acts of Congress of eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, approved June 2, 1858, to be falsely appraised, in all at $78, when in truth and in fact the said certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, were well worth at that time the sum of fourteen hundred dollars-- contrary to the form of the statute, etc.'

The second count is framed substantially on the same lines as count 1. It charges a conspiracy by and between the defendants on the 20th day of April, A.D. 1903, with regard to certain certificates of location, which were to be issued in satisfaction of a certain private land claim of one Maria Taurus, deceased. The count charges that on the 20th of April, A.D., 1903, to effect the object of the conspiracy, the defendants 'did unlawfully, knowingly, falsely, and fraudulently apply in the name of John C. McCants, as the pretended administrator of the succession of Maria Taurus, to, and receive of and from, the United States Surveyor General of the District of Louisiana fourteen certificates of location, which they falsely and fraudulently caused to be illegally sold at private sale by the pretended administrator, and received the proceeds thereof, and converted them to their own use, etc. That thereafter the said certificates were located on public lands of the United States. ' The count goes on to charge: 'The fact with reference to the said pretended administration of the succession of the said Maria Taurus being, and well known to the said (here naming the defendants) to be, that said Maria Taurus did not die in the parish of Washington, state of Louisiana; that she was never domiciled therein, and that her succession owed no debts, taxes, local assessments, and charges of any kind in said parish of Washington, and yet, on the eleventh day of March, A.D. one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, the said (here naming the defendants) did apply to the honorable the Sixteenth Judicial District Court for the parish of Washington, state of Louisiana, in the name of said John C. McCants, a person unlawfully interposed for their benefit, for letters of administration on the estate of said Maria Taurus, deceased, and for the appointment of an attorney for absent heirs and for an appraisement and inventory, falsely and fraudulently alleging, and causing it to be alleged in said application, that the said Maria Taurus was domiciled and died in said parish of Washington, state of Louisiana, and that her succession was largely in debt, and owed state, parish, and municipal taxes and the defendants) caused the said claim of said Maria Taurus for certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, under said act of Congress (chapter 81, etc.), aforesaid, of the public acts of Congress of 1858, approved June 2, 1858, to be falsely appraised in all at thirty-two dollars, when in truth and in fact the said certificates of location, otherwise known as land scrip, were well worth the sum of $640-- contrary to the form of the statute,' etc.

The third count is framed substantially on the same lines as counts 1 and 2. It charges a conspiracy by and between defendants on the 9th day of November, A.D. 1901, with regard to certain certificates of location which were to be issued in satisfaction of a certain private land claim of one Charles Smith, deceased. The count charges that on the 9th day of November, A.D. 1901, to effect the objects of the conspiracy, the defendants did 'unlawfully, knowingly falsely, and fraudulently apply in the name of one John C. McCants, * * * as the pretended administrator of the succession of said Charles Smith, deceased, to and receive of and from the United States Surveyor General of the District of Louisiana, at New Orleans, two of said certificates of location; * * * that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • United States v. Schneiderman, Cr. No. 22131.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • August 19, 1952
    ...1907, 154 F. 577, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 1053, certiorari denied, 1907, 207 U.S. 588, 28 S.Ct. 255, 52 L.Ed. 353; see United States v. Bradford, E.D.La.1905, 148 F. 413, 418, 419, affirmed, 5 Cir., 1907, 152 F. 616, certiorari denied, 1907, 206 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 795, 51 L.Ed. This does not mean t......
  • United States v. United States Gypsum Co., Civ. A. No. 8017.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 15, 1943
    ...18 S.Ct. 62, 42 L.Ed. 458; Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 1929, 279 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356, 73 L.Ed. 752; United States v. Bradford, C.C.E.D.La. 1905, 148 F. 413, affirmed per curiam, 5 Cir., 1906, 152 F. 616, certiorari denied 1907, 206 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 795, 51 L.Ed. 1190—do not ......
  • State v. Love
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 9, 1933
    ...547, 335 Ill. 539, 167 N.E. 825; People v. Walsh, 322 Ill. 195, 153 N.E. 357; State v. Gregory, 93 N. J. Law, 205, 107 A. 459; U. S. v. Bradford, 148 F. 413, 152 F. 616, C. C. A. 606, 27 S.Ct. 795, 206 U.S. 563, 51 L.Ed. 1190; Jones v. U.S. 162 F. 417, 89 C. C. A. 303, 29 S.Ct. 685, 212 U.S......
  • Breese v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 7, 1913
    ......The weight of. authority, in our opinion, is to the contrary. See Wilson. v. U.S., 190 F. 427, 435, 111 C.C.A. 231; Hedderly. v. U.S., 193 F. 561, 569, 114 C.C.A. 227; Jones v. U.S., 162 F. 417, 426, 89 C.C.A. 303; Lonabaugh v. U.S., 179 F. 476, 478, 103 C.C.A. 56; U.S. v. Bradford (C.C.) 148 F. 413, 419; U.S. v. Brace. (D.C.) 149 F. 874, 877; Ware v. U.S., 154 F. 577, 579, 84 C.C.A. 503, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1053, 12 Ann.Cas. 233; U.S. v. Greene (D.C.) 115 F. 347; U.S. v. Greene (D.C.) 146 F. 803, 889; Lorenz v. U.S.,. 24 App.D.C. 337, 387; Com. v. Wishart, 8 Leg.Gaz. ......
  • 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