United States v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 11 September 1905 |
Docket Number | 2,890,2,898. |
Citation | 141 F. 666 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Francis J. Heney, for the United States.
John M Gearin, for defendant Binger Hermann.
It is charged that on February 1, 1902, defendants conspired and agreed together, knowingly, wickedly, and corruptly to defraud the United States out of the possession and use of and the title to, divers large tracts of the public lands within Oregon, which lands had been, prior to September 28 1893, open to entry under the homestead laws, but which were on that day included within the limits of the Cascade Range Forest Reserve by executive order, and withdrawn from settlement and entry, under the laws pertaining to forest reserves. It is alleged that the said unlawful conspiracy to defraud the United States was one for obtaining, for the profit and benefit of defendants, and appropriating the possession and use of, and title to, and the proceeds of the sale of, the lands, as set forth, by means and in pursuance of a certain false, fraudulent, and corrupt practice of them the said defendants--
'Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of February, 1902, S. B. Ormsby, Forest Superintendent,' upon and to a certain deposition of one L. Jacobs concerning the supposed settlement and residence upon the same lands by Emma Porter.'
Other overt acts are alleged, of a similar nature to that just described.
It is also alleged that, in pursuance of the said unlawful conspiracy and agreement, and to effect the object of the same, and by means thereof to defraud the United States out of the possession and use of and title to all of the tracts of public lands described in the indictment, the said John H Mitchell, on March 3, 1902, at the city of Washington, unlawfully did prepare a certain written affidavit for the said Emma L. Watson to sign and swear to. This affidavit, made by Mrs. Emma L. Watson, substantially states that she owned by purchase certain described lands; that she paid in the aggregate for them a little over $8,000; that when she bought she was advised that the titles were good, except that patents had not issued, but would be issued at a very early date, in the regular course of business; that, in order to raise money to purchase the lands, she had borrowed a large sum of money, and that she would suffer great injury unless her rights could be determined by the Interior Department at Washington; that all of the lands bought were homestead entries, and that she believed they were all made without fraud or other cause which would stand in the way of the issuance to the entrymen of patents to the lands-- wherefore she asked speedy examination and action. The indictment contains another affidavit, made by defendant Puter, wherein he states that he was the representative of Mrs. Watson in investing her money, and that he advised her to buy the lands, and assured her that the titles were good, except that patents had not issued, and that he was put in an embarrassing position, as there was some delay, and certain attacks were made on a portion of the entries described, and that it was a matter of much importance to Mrs. Watson and himself that there be a speedy determination of the homestead entries. It is charged that on March 3, 1902, at Washington, D.C., defendant Puter did pay to John H. Mitchell the sum of $2,000 in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shannon v. United States
...in furtherance of its accomplishment without knowledge. To repeat the allegation of knowledge would approach tautology. United States v. Mitchell (C. C.) 141 F. 666; Henry v. United States (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) The demurrer attacked the indictment on the further ground that it appeared from ......
-
In re Latimer
...141 F. 665 In re LATIMER et al. No. 2,217.United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.December 27, 1905 ... Henry ... J. Scott, for ... ...