United States v. Ryckman

• Decision Date: 29 April 1882
• Citation: 12 F. 46
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. RYCKMAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

12 F. 46

UNITED STATES v. RYCKMAN.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee.

April 29, 1882

The indictment in this case, containing two counts, charged the defendant, as the agent and attorney of one Mary Jane Simmons in the prosecution of her pension claim, with wrongfully withholding from her a certain portion of the pension granted her by the United States. The claim was allowed in February 1881, and on March 4th, following, the pensioner executed the proper vouchers for the sum of $333.86, the amount due her which were forwarded to the paying agency at Knoxville. Afterwards, on the same day, the defendant procured Mrs Simmons to execute to him a power of attorney to receive from the post-office at Dresden all letters addressed to her concerning her pension, and to sign 'all papers acknowledgments, receipts, and vouchers' necessary to carry into effect the power of attorney; but this instrument did not authorize defendant to indorse the pension check. The defendant then went to a merchant in Dresden, represented that he had the power of attorney, and that it authorized him to indorse the check which would soon arrive, and that Mrs. Simmons desired to purchase goods on credit; the merchant thereupon sold her some $35 worth of goods, she agreeing to pay for the same out of her pension money when it arrived. The pensioner was an ignorant woman, who could neither read nor write.

Some two or three weeks afterwards the letter containing the check came to the post-office at Dresden, addressed to the pensioner, and having the pension-office stamp printed on the envelope. The defendant, in company with the merchant, went to the post-office, deposited the power of attorney with the postmistress, received the letter, opened it, and indorsed the check as follows:

'MARY J.

(her mark) SIMMONS. Witness: B. F. RYCKMAN, Attorney, Dresden, Tennessee; ' and delivered it to the merchant, who, in payment of the check, credited the pensioner with the $35 due him from her for the goods sold, and credited the defendant also in the sum of about $100 owing from him to the merchant, and gave the defendant a small amount in money, and his note or due-bill, payable to defendant, for the balance. The pensioner did not know of the arrival of her check for some weeks afterwards, was not present when it was indorsed, and first ascertained the fact by inquiry at the post-office, when she sent to the defendant for her money, but he never paid her any of it nor went to see her about it. She then, on learning that Mr. Irvine, the merchant, had cashed her check, had an interview with him. On being advised that the power of attorney did not authorize the defendant to indorse the check, Mr. Irvine paid the pensioner the full amount of the check in money, except the $35 due him from her, and at once notified the pension agency at Knoxville, and the commissioner of pensions at Washington, of the facts, and made several demands upon the defendant for the note or due-bill given him; but the latter refused to surrender it, and it was not in his possession at the trial. On the back of this check was the following notice, printed in red ink: 'NOTICE-- The payee's indorsement on this check must correspond with signature to the voucher for which the check was given. If the payee cannot write, his or her mark should be witnessed, and the witness state his or her residence in full. ' The check was dated March 8, 1881. It was conceded by the defendant's counsel in argument that if the indorsement by the defendant of the pensioner's name on the check had been duly authorized by the power of attorney, and there were no law making such instruments concerning pensions void, the defendant, under the facts of the case, would be guilty; but it was contended for the defendant that the power of attorney being void in law, and not in terms authorizing the indorsement, the money had been paid by Irvine on a forged indorsement; that his due-bill to the defendant was also void, and that the government was, notwithstanding, liable to the pensioner for the money; and that as the defendant had received no money for the check, except about five dollars, less than the fee allowed him by law, and Irvine had paid the proceeds of the check to her there had been no withholding, and the court was requested to so instruct the jury.

John B. Clough, Asst. U.S. Atty., for the United States.

Henry W. McCorry, for defendant.

HAMMOND D.J., (charging jury.)

The indictment in this case charges a violation of section 5485 of the Revised Statutes, which is as follows:

'Any agent or attorney, or other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for pension or bounty land, who shall directly or indirectly contract for, demand, or receive, or retain any greater compensation for his services or instrumentality in prosecuting a claim for pension or bounty land than is provided in the title pertaining to pensions, or who shall wrongfully withhold from a pensioner or claimant the whole or any part of the pension or

...