United States v. Fout
| Decision Date | 13 May 1903 |
| Citation | 123 F. 625 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FOUT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
D. P Dyer, U.S. Dist. Atty.
Chester H. Krum, for defendant.
I have taken occasion, during the recess of the court, to give all the consideration which the time would permit to the important question raised by defendant's objection to further evidence. I have also had the aid of my Brother Amidon, who has examined the question with me, not only in the light of the language of the act, but in the light of all the authorities which we could find, bearing upon the subject. The conclusion which we have reached is that section 5421, Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3667), denounces three separate offenses. The first is the making or forging or counterfeiting, or causing the same to be done, or aiding or abetting others in the making, of any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other paper, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or enabling any other person, directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive, from the United States, or any officer or agent, any sum of money. That is the first offense denounced by this section. In short, it means that the making of any forged or counterfeited paper of the kinds specified for the purpose of obtaining any sum of money from the United States, or any of its officers, is an offense. The second denounced by this section is that any person who utters or publishes as true or causes the same to be done, any false, forged, altered, or counterfeited deed or writing of that kind, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing that the paper so uttered or published was forged or counterfeited, is guilty of an offense. That is the second offense. In short, that means that any person who utters--that is, disposes of-- any forged, altered, false, or counterfeited paper, by way of trade, or, in other words, any person who sells or vends or puts in circulation any false, forged, or altered paper of the kind described, with the intent to defraud the United States, and knowing the paper to be so forged, is guilty of another and a separate offense. The third offense denounced by the section is that any person who transmits to or presents at, or causes or procures to be transmitted to or presented at, any office or officer of the government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, etc., in support of or in relation to any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the instrument used to be false, forged, etc., shall be guilty of another offense. Now more succinctly stated, possibly, this last offense involves the transmission, whether directly or indirectly, of one of these false papers to an office or officer of the United States, with knowledge that it is false, forged, and with intent to defraud the United States.
The evidence in this case so far tends to show that the defendant prepared, or caused to be prepared, certain papers purporting to be papers requisite and necessary to secure an additional homestead, for three separate persons-- Mrs. Jane Smith, Mrs. Louisa May, and John Lee-- and that the papers which he so caused to be prepared, or had a hand in preparing, were false papers, within the meaning of the law and therefore, as construed by the courts, forged papers, within the meaning of the section 5421. The evidence further shows that after he had taken the steps, or done the acts, which, as I say, tend to show such conduct on his part, in the way of preparing these papers, he sent them to the witness E. M. Robards at Springfield, Mo., as an act of delivery to him of an assignment of the right of these three persons to an additional homestead. It appears that the original transfer by this lady, Mrs. Jane Smith, transferred the right to the additional homestead directly to Robards; but the evidence tends to show that this was done by the procurement of the defendant in this case without the knowledge of Mrs. Smith and in fraud of her rights. Without commenting on this conduct, the evidence tends to show that the defendant did what he did for the purpose of securing to himself a vendible thing. Therefore, when he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kohler
...sence, embraces the sales under contemplation. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509, 527, 528, 533 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1839); United States v. Fout, 123 F. 625, 628 (D.C.Mo.1903); State v. Mills, 146 Mo. 195, 47 S.W. 938, 941 (Sup.Ct.1898). In accord, see the authorities holding that the verb 'utter' me......
-
Demaurez v. Squier
...here involved (18 U.S.C.A. § 73) denounces three offenses, forgery, uttering, and presentation for payment", citing United States v. Fout, D.C.Mo., 123 F. 625, 636; United States v. Hartman, D.C.Mo., 65 F. 490, also, see Reid v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 65 F.2d 110, certiorari denied, 290 U.S. 676......
-
Panko v. Grimes
...sence, embraces the sales under contemplation. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509, 527, 528, 533 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1839); United States v. Fout, 123 F. 625, 628 (D.C.Mo.1903); State v. Mills, 146 Mo. 195, 47 S.W. 938, 941 (Sup.Ct.1898). In accord, see the authorities holding that the verb 'utter' me......
-
Beddow v. United States, 9850.
...The statute here involved (18 USCA § 73) denounces three offenses, forgery, uttering, and presentation for payment. United States v. Fout, 123 F. 625, 626 (D. C. Mo.); United States v. Hartman, 65 F. 490 (D. C. Mo.). Also see Reid v. Aderhold, 65 F.(2d) 110 (C. C. A. 5), certiorari denied, ......