United States v. Curley
| Decision Date | 30 April 1903 |
| Docket Number | 1,949. |
| Citation | 122 F. 738 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CURLEY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Henry P. Moulton, U.S. Atty., and William P. Lewis, Asst. U.S Atty.
Heman W. Chaplin, for defendants.
This indictment is for conspiracy against the United States, and sets forth that Hughes, desiring to procure an appointment as letter carrier-- a position in the classified civil service of the United States-- and for the purpose of procuring the place of his name on the list of persons eligible to appointment as letter carriers, and for the purpose of defrauding the United States, unlawfully agreed with Curley that the defendant Curley should falsely impersonate Hughes at a civil service examination, and do all acts required by the board of examiners, and sign the name of Hughes to such examination papers as should be delivered to Curley for examination while he should personate said Hughes; that Curley, in pursuance of said conspiracy, did falsely and fraudulently gain entrance to an examination, and, for the purpose of defrauding the United States, did falsely make a certain writing, known as a 'declaration sheet.' There are also allegations of presenting false papers to an officer of the United States.
The indictment contains three counts: The first, charging a conspiracy to defraud the United States under section 5440 Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676); the second, a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, an offense set out in section 5418 (page 3666), to falsely make a writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; the third, a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, the offense being under section 5418, to wit, to present a false writing to an officer of the United States. The case is before the court on demurrer to the indictment.
BROWN District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The substance of the defendants' contention on demurrer is that the words 'for the purpose of defrauding the United States,' in section 5418, Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901 p. 3666), and 'to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose,' in section 5440 (page 3676), signify only direct pecuniary fraud by depriving the United States of money or property. Upon consideration of section 5418, and upon similar facts, this point was decided contrary to the defendants' contention in United States v. Bunting (D.C.) 82 F. 883. The point was also considered, though not decided, by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in Palmer v. Calladay, June 18, 1901 reported in Washington Law Reporter, Vol. 29, No. 31, pages 532, 534, the opinion saying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bridges, 32117.
...78, 168 F.2d 133.1b Cf. U. S. v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598; U. S. v. Agnew, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 566, 568; U. S. v. Curley, C.C., 122 F. 738. Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in U. S. v. Gilliland, supra, 312 U.S. at page 93, 61 S. Ct. at page 522, 85 L.Ed. 598, said in speaking ......
-
United States v. Gradwell
...249, 54 L.Ed. 569, 17 Ann.Cas. 1112; U.S. v. Plyler, 222 U.S. 15, 32 Sup.Ct. 6, 56 L.Ed. 70; U.S. v. Curley (D.C.) 122 F. 738, Id., 130 F. 1, 64 C.C.A. 369. But these and all cited, except one, relate to functions of the organized government, and not to a step in the organization of the gov......
-
United States v. Marzani, Cr. No. 48 — 47.
...discharge of its business, and it is thereby liable to obtain a less efficient employee." (Emphasis supplied.) See also United States v. Curley, C.C., 122 F. 738, certiorari denied 195 U.S. 628, 25 S.Ct. 787, 49 L.Ed. In Burdick v. Post, 12 Barb., N. Y., 168, 186, it is said that "to defrau......
-
McGregor v. United States
... ... loss to it would be as reprehensible as such conduct itself ... This statute has, in a number of well-considered cases, been ... given the construction approval. United States v. Bunting ... et al. (D.C) 82 F. 883; United States v. Curley et ... al. (C.C.) 122 F. 738; Palmer v. Colloday, 18 ... App.D.C. 426; Tyner and Barrett v. United States, 23 ... App.D.C. 324 ... The ... special pleas to the remaining counts of the indictment raise ... the question whether the plaintiff in error was such an ... employe of ... ...