United States v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 09 December 1890
• Citation: 44 F. 749
• Court: United States District Court, District of Washington, Northern Division
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BROOKS.

44 F. 749

UNITED STATES v. BROOKS.

United States District Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

December 9, 1890

Syllabus by the Court

An indictment charging an ex-collector of customs with embezzlement being so indefinite that the court was unable to understand whether it involved but a single transaction or a series of peculations, the court ordered that a bill of particulars be furnished, and continued the case to allow time to prepare it. At a subsequent term, upon the case being called for trial, the district attorney declared his inability to furnish the bill of particulars, and moved to discontinue the cause. Held, that the statement of the district attorney was equivalent to an admission of a lack of evidence to sustain the charge, and, as the prosecution must fail, the motion was granted, notwithstanding the defendant's protest and demand for a jury trial.

Patrick H. Winston, U.S. Atty.

A. R Coleman, for defendant.

HANFORD J., (orally.)

The defendant in this case was indicted by a grand jury in the district court of the third judicial district of Washington territory, holding terms at Port Townsend, for the crime of grand larceny, by embezzlement of funds belonging to the United States, alleged to have been received by him in his official capacity as collector of customs for the district of Puget sound. The indictment alleges that a certain gross sum of money came into his hands officially as collector of customs; that he has not accounted for all of it, but has embezzled a part of it. The case was pending at the time of the change from the territorial to a state government, and in due time this court, as successor of the territorial district court, assumed control of the case, and the defendant was arraigned in this court upon that indictment. On being arraigned, he asked to be furnished a bill of particulars. Upon due consideration, the court was unable to understand, from the facts stated in the indictment, whether the government intended to charge him with having received at one time the amount of money alleged to have come into his hands, and from that single amount appropriated a part, or whether it was claimed that at different times during his incumbency in office he had received sums aggregating a gross sum, as mentioned, and had appropriated a part of each of the different sums, or whether it was claimed that the sum total of all his receipts while in office was the...