« AnteriorContinuar »
Forging Howgate v. United States, 7 App. D. C. 217. The words bonds, bids, public
“other writing” include an owner's oath required to be records, etc. taken before making an entry of goods at the custom-house,
and an import entry and an importer's bond, notwithstanding $ 69 punishes as a misdemeanor all fraudulent acts done in effecting an entry of goods. United States v. Lawrence, supra. A forged affidavit regarding a material fact erroneously received in evidence by the officers of a local land office in a claim to land within their jurisdiction, may form the basis for a conviction under this statute, and it is immaterial that extrinsic facts might make the instrument void, though genuine. Neff v. United States, 165 F. R. 273. Similarly this section includes a forged affidavit when it appears therefrom, or in connection with extraneous circumstances alleged in the indictment, that it may be used to defraud the government as alleged. United States v. Barnhart, 33 F. R. 459. On the other hand as the object of this provision is to protect the general government against the consequences resulting from the forgery, alteration or counterfeiting of documents, records or writings in some manner connected with its business as conducted by its own officers, it does not include the forgery of a note purporting to be made by an individual and made payable at a national bank. Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 131, 33 L. ed. 287; and see People v. Welch, 74 Hun, 474, 482. Forging the name of a justice of the peace on accounts is not within this section unless done with intent to defraud. Staton v. United States, 88 F. R. 253. Making a blank form of a certificate of residence, such as when filled out are issued to Chinese, is not within this section. United States v. Ah Won, 97 F. R. 494. If the instrument was incapable of defrauding the government there is no violation of this section. United States v. Barnhart, 33 F. R. 459; Neff v. United States, 165 Id. 273.
It has been held that this section is to be considered as
relating to forgery only, and not to the making or assisting Forging
bonds, bids, to make an affidavit which is genuine in itself, but contain
public ing statements which are false and untrue, for the pur- records, etc. pose of defrauding the government. Hence an indictment which charges a person with aiding and assisting another in making certain affidavits which contain matter false and untrue with intent to defraud the United States, and with transmitting to an officer of the United States an affidavit in writing which contained statements known by him to be false and fraudulent, cannot be sustained as an indictment hereunder. And it is too indefinite if it is intended to charge that the affidavit was transmitted or presented to any officer of the United States in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim to be sustained under $ 29. United States v. Cameron, 13 N. W. Rep. (Dak.) 561, 3 Smith, 132. An indictment, under this section, for transmitting to the Commissioner of Pensions a false and altered affidavit with the intent to defraud the United States must aver that it was so transmitted as a claim against the United States and allege facts showing prejudice to the United States. United States v. Van Leuven, 62 F. R. 69, 71. Unless it appears on the face of a homestead application that it had not the capacity of effecting fraud, an indictment for the forgery of such application is good on demurrer within this section, although in the application the land is not described with technical accuracy. United States v. McKinley, 127 F. R. 166. An indictment for the forgery of an entry of goods at the customhouse need not allege the existence of the goods. United States v. Lawrence, supra. Where intent is made a part of the offense, the indictment should allege it. The particular manner in which the act is done need not generally be alleged. United States v. Wentworth, supra. The charge in the indictment must be direct and not by inference. United States v. Johnson, 26 App. D. C. 136. An allegation that the crime occurred "on or about” a certain day is sufficiently
Forging definite as to time. United States v. McKinley, 127 F. R. bonds, bids, public
168. In order to find one guilty hereunder of making a false records, etc. payroll, the jury must be satisfied, (1) that the time and pay
roll was false, forged and counterfeit; (2) that the defendant sent it to the proper officer of the government; (3) that he knew its false character at the time he sent it, and that his intent was to defraud the government. If one intends what he knows the law forbids, the law infers the intent to defraud from the act. United States v. Houghton, 14 F. R. 544, 4 Crim. L. Mag. 243. Offenses named in this section can be prosecuted only by indictment. United States v. Tod, 25 F. R. 815.
Forging SECTION 29. Whoever shall falsely make, alter, forge, or deeds, pow- counterfeit, or cause or procure to be falsely made, altered, ers of at
forged, or counterfeited, or willingly aid or assist in the false torney, etc. making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any deed, power
of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States, or any of their officers or agents, any sum of money; or whoever shall utter or publish as true, or cause to be uttered or published as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or whoever shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or officer of the Government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than ten years.
This section is the same as U. S. Rev. Sts. § 5421, except that "contract” has been three times inserted and a change made in the punishment. See the notes to $ 28. United States v. Albert, 45 F. R. 552; United States v. Kessel, 62 Id. 59; United States v. Hansee, 79 Id. 303; Staton v. Forging
deeds, pow United States, 88 Id. 253; De Lemos v. United States, 91
ers of atId. 497; United States v. Fout, 123 Id. 625. The ingredi- torney, etc. ents of this offense should be set forth with such particularity that the court and defendant may know from the indictment whether the defendant is to be tried for transmitting an affidavit not genuine in its execution, or one genuine in its execution but false in statement, and if the latter, whether in a material or immaterial part. United States v. Corbin, 11 F. R. 238. The third clause of this section includes an affidavit sworn to by an actual person, but false in the facts it professes to narrate, as well as an affidavit forged or counterfeited, if the defendant knew that it was false. United States v. Staats, 8 How. 41; United States v. Spaulding, 13 N. W. Rep. 357, 3 Smith (Dak.), 85. This section applies only to instruments altered or forged for the purpose of obtaining moneys from the United States or their officers or agents. United States v. Reese, 4 Sawyer, 629, 27 Fed. Cas. 746. Hence it does not apply to a false and fraudulent bond relating to the exportation of distilled spirits. United States v. Barney, 5 Blatch. 294, 24 Fed. Cas. 1011. The word “claim" is not limited to a demand for money, and an indictment will be supported for the transmission to the Pension Office of forged papers in support of a claim for bounty land under an Act of Congress (United States v. Wilcox, 4 Blatch. 385); or for the transmission of false affidavits or declarations in support of an application for bounty landwarrants. United States v. Bickford, 4 Blatch. 337, 24 Fed. Cas. 1144. A pre-emption claim is also such an act or claim as is within the meaning of this section. United States v. Spaulding, supra. See dissenting opinion, 13 N. W.
Rep. 538. It is sufficient to aver that the act was done with intent to defraud the government without alleging that it was done feloniously or with a felonious intent. United States v. Staats, supra. It need not be alleged that the forged papers which
Forging were transmitted stated all the facts required to be estabdeeds, pow. lished to entitle the party to the claim, if it shows that they ers of attorney, etc. were transmitted for the purpose of obtaining its allowance.
United States v. Wilcox, supra. It is unnecessary to show that the prisoner actually transmitted the papers. Any party participating or co-operating in the crime by aiding or assisting is liable. United States v. Bickford, supra. It is unnecessary that the claim should be one in favor of the person who presents the false writing in support of it. United States v. Kohnstamm, 5 Blatch. 222, 26 Fed. Cas. 813. The repealing clause of St. March 2, 1863 (12 St. 699), saves prosecutions for offenses committed hereunder prior to the passage of the Act of 1863. Id. The first part of this section is a forgery and not a perjury statute. United States v. Moore, 60 F. R. 738. The section really enumerates three offenses, viz.: (1) The false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting of an instrument; (2) uttering or publishing the same as true, with intent to defraud the United States; (3) transmitting or presenting the same to an officer of the government with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false. United States v. Hartman, 65 F. R. 490. The affidavit must be knowingly false and not merely reckless. United States v. Moore, 2 Low. 232. “Making” a false affidavit in a pension matter is within this section but causing one to be made is within Rev. Sts. $ 4746. United States v. Kuentsler, 74 F. R. 220. Forgery of an affidavit by a pensioner to be used in contesting his deserted wife's claim for one-half his pension is not within this section. United States v. Swan, 131 F. R. 140. The same is true of a false certificate by a notary public. United States v. Glasener, 81 F. R. 566.
Having false, etc., papers in possession
SECTION 30. Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, shall have in his possession any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, for