United States v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 19 November 1900 |
| Docket Number | 4,544. |
| Citation | 108 F. 621 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Edward A. Rozier, U.S. Atty.
Chester H. Krum and Robert L. McLaran, for defendant.
A demurrer is interposed by the defendant on the alleged ground of duplicity in the indictment. The indictment is preferred under the provisions of the act of April 18, 1884, which enacts as follows:
'That every person who with intent to defraud either the United States, or any person, falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States, or any department or any officer of the government thereof, and who shall take upon himself to act as such, or shall in such pretended character, demand or obtain from any person, or from the United States, or any department or any officer of the government thereof, any money, paper document, or other valuable thing, shall be deemed guilty * * * .'
An analysis of this act discloses that two offenses are denounced by it. The first, in order stated, is falsely impersonating an officer or employe of the United States or some person. The first portion of the act, in my opinion makes an important element of the offense to consist of making use of the assumed or pretended position for the purpose of extorting money or property from another either, for instance, in satisfaction of an alleged claim of the United States, or to secure immunity from punishment for all alleged offense, or for other similar purposes, in which the impersonator, acting under the assumed authority of the United States, undertakes to assert the authority of the United States, and, in so doing, to defraud. The distinguishing feature of the first offense, in my opinion is the making use of the assumed or pretended position for the purpose of falsely and wrongfully asserting a pretended claim of the United States, and thereby to defraud the person with whom he is dealing, out of money or property. The second offense is falsey impersonating an officer of employe of the United States, and in the pretended or assumed character demanding or obtaining either from the United States, or from some person, any money or valuable thing, with the intent to defraud. The elements of this offence, in my opinion, are more comprehensive, and do not limit the wrongful act to such as extorting money or property from another under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Pierce
...or obtaining money or other valuable thing with intent to defraud. United States v. Rush (D.C. Wash.1912) 196 F. 579; United States v. Taylor (D.C.Mo.1900) 108 F. 621; United States v. Curtain (D.C.S.C.1890) 43 F. 433; (principle recognized) Lamar v. United States (N.Y.1916) 241 U.S. 103, 3......
-
United States v. Leggett
...F. 2d 682, 683; Kane v. United States (C.C.A.8), 120 F.2d 990, 993; Pierce v. United States (C.C.A.6), 86 F.2d 949, 951; United States v. Taylor (D.C.8), 108 F. 621; United States v. Carr, D.C., 194 F.Supp. Government counsel while not denying that the statute defines two separate offenses ......
-
United States v. Carr, Crim. No. 12978.
...in the Elliott case for the same reasons. Finally, the indictment in the instant case differs from the indictment in United States v. Taylor, D.C., 108 F. 621, 622 in which case the indictment in one and the same count charged that the defendant did "pretend to be" a United States officer, ......
-
United States v. Grewe
...241 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 535, 60 L.Ed. 912 (1916). The particular cases upon which the Government relies in this case (United States v. Taylor, (E.D.Mo.1900) 108 F. 621; United States v. Ballard, (W.D.Mo. 1902) 118 F. 757; and United States v. Farnham, (E.D.Pa.1904) 127 F. 478) were held in L......