United States v. Coggin

Citation3 F. 492
PartiesUNITED STATES v. COGGIN.
Decision Date01 January 1880
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

G. W Hazleton, District Attorney, for the United States.

Jenkins Elliott & Winkler, for the defendant.

Demurrer to Indictment.

DRUMMOND C.J.

A demurrer has been interposed to the indictment in this case and it is insisted by the counsel of the defendant, in a very able and ingenious argument, that the indictment is insufficient. I think the indictment is sufficient. The offence charged in the indictment may be stated in general terms to be this: The defendant was a private in company K in the sixteenth regiment of the Wisconsin volunteers, during the war of the rebellion. Several years ago, long enough before this indictment was found to enable the defendant to plead the statute of limitations to the offence then committed, he, by affidavit and otherwise, in a false and fraudulent manner caused his name to be entered on the pension roll at Washington for a pension, on the ground that he had been wounded in the heel by a shell at the battle of Corinth, on the fourth of October, 1862. His name was accordingly entered on the pension roll, and the usual certificate was given to him that he was a pensioner entitled to a pension from the United States; and the pension then became payable at the pension office in Milwaukee. He presented this certificate to the pension agent at Milwaukee, at a time within that limited by the statute of limitations, prior to the finding of the bill of indictment, and obtained money from the United States. It is alleged in the indictment that the grounds upon which the application was sustained before the commissioner of pensions, and his name entered upon the list of pensioners, and the certificate issued, were all false, fictitious, and fraudulent; that, in point of fact, he was not injured at all at the battle of Corinth in any way, and so consequently was not entitled to a pension from the United States; and the claim made on the pension agency in Milwaukee for a pension, and for money which he received, was a false claim, and therefore he has committed the offence described in the 5438th section of the Revised Statutes. And the questions are whether the offence is sufficiently described in the indictment; and whether the offence described in this section is within the offence, or is the same as the offence described in the indictment. This section was taken from the act of the second of March, 1863, found in the twelfth volume of the Statutes at Large, 696. That describes the offence as follows: 'That any person in the land or naval forces of the United States, or in the militia in actual service of the United States, in time of war, who shall make, or cause to be made, or present, or cause to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil or military service of the United States, any claim upon or against the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent,' should be deemed guilty of a criminal offence, and subject to punishment. This was confined, of course, to persons in the land or naval forces of the United States, or in the militia in actual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Winchester
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • December 24, 1975
    ...v. United States, 116 F. 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1902), cert. denied, 189 U.S. 509, 23 S. Ct. 850, 47 L.Ed. 923 (1903); United States v. Coggin, 3 F. 492, 495 (E.D.Wis. 1880). See also Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148, 153, 76 S.Ct. 219, 100 L.Ed. 149 Therefore, defendant's motion ......
  • United States v. Branker
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 13, 1968
    ...Dimmick v. United States, 116 F. 825 (9th Cir. 1902), cert. denied, 189 U.S. 509, 23 S.Ct. 850, 47 L.Ed. 923 (1903); United States v. Coggin, 3 F. 492 (E.D.Wis. 1880). In view of our disposition of the appeals of Branker, Lopez, Moore, and Ross, we need not discuss the other points which th......
  • State v. Swan
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1906
    ...the affidavit was not sworn to can make no difference. (State v. Adams, 79 P. 398; United States v. Ingraham, 155 U.S. 434; United States v. Coggin, 3 F. 492; State v. Voute [Ohio], 67 N.E. FRICK, J. McCARTY, C. J., and STRAUP, J., concur. OPINION FRICK, J. The appellant, William R. Swan, w......
  • State v. Curtis
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1916
    ... ... bonds, and refers to the bonds as false and fraudulent, but ... states in detail facts showing that the offense really ... consists in presenting for payment genuine ... based upon presenting a forged or counterfeited affidavit. ( ... United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 12 L.Ed ... There ... is a great distinction between ... (United States v. Miskell, 15 F ... The ... case of United States v. Coggin, 3 F. 492, 9 Biss ... 416, is also instructive as to the presentation of a false ... claim upon ... ...

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