United States v. Byron
| Decision Date | 03 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 6726. |
| Citation | 223 F. 798 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BYRON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Clarence L. Reames, U.S. Atty., of Portland Or., for the United states.
P. V Davis and E. M. Comyns, both of Seattle, Wash., for defendants.
Defendants were indicted for a violation of the latter clause of section 29 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
'Whoever shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or officer of the government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited,' etc., shall be punished accordingly.
It is alleged in the indictment that on June 9, 1914, the defendants did knowingly and feloniously transmit to and present at, and cause to be presented to and presented at the United States land office at Roseburg, Or., a certain false and fraudulent writing in support of or in relation to a claim against the United States, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false. The writing is set out in the indictment, and consists of the preliminary sworn statement or application of one Emma L. Brockwell to purchase certain described lands under the Timber and Stone Act (Act June 3, 1878, c. 151, 20 Stat. 89 (Comp. St. 1913 Sec. 4671)). It appears to have been verified by the applicant before the receiver of the land office, and contains a statement to the effect that the applicant had personally examined the land, knew that it was unfit for cultivation and valuable chiefly for its timber, that it was worth $425, and was uninhabited, which statements, it is alleged, were untrue and false, and known to be such to the defendants when they presented or caused such application to be presented at the land office.
The defendants demurred to the indictment on the ground, among others, that a preliminary sworn statement or application for the purchase of land under the Timber and Stone Act does not constitute the presentation of a writing in support of or in relation to a claim against the United States, within the intendment of the statute, and in this view I concur.
The purpose of the statute is to punish attempts to defraud the United States by transmitting or presenting, or causing to be transmitted or presented, to or at an officer of office of the United States, any writing in support of or in relation to an account or claim against the United States, with intent to defraud the United States; the party presenting the same knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Tieger
...situation far removed both from the usual type of claim and from the present case. In fact, there is language in United States v. Byron, D.C.D.Ore.1915, 223 F. 798, a decision cited both by the court below and by appellee, which seems to support the Government's contention. "A claim, within......
-
United States v. Weekly Publications
...States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 3 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 233, 236, reversed 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443; United States v. Byron, D.C.Or., 1915, 223 F. 798, 800. Defendants place great reliance on United States v. Cohn, 1926, 270 U.S. 339, 345, 346, 46 S.Ct. 251, 253, 70 L.Ed. 616,......
-
United States v. Mulligan
...within clause 3, because the false application was not transmitted or presented in support of any "account or claim." See United States v. Byron, 223 F. 798 (D. C. Or.). Clause 2 is the portion of the section relied upon. But, to bring the relator's conduct within the denunciation of clause......
-
United States v. Mercur Corporation, 225.
...(D.C.) 5 F.Supp. 515; the dictum in Capone v. United States (C.C.A.) 51 F.(2d) 609, 614, 76 A.L.R. 1534, and the decision in United States v. Byron (D.C.) 223 F. 798, to the same In Kurzrok v. United States, 1 F.(2d) 209 (C.C.A.8), where an Internal Revenue agent presented a false claim for......