United States v. Wilcox
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
This was a demurrer to an indictment. The indictment contained two counts, each founded upon the 1st section of the act of congress of March 3, 1823 (3 Stat. 771), which provides, that if any person or persons “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, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to, any…
Read the full summary
This was a demurrer to an indictment. The indictment contained two counts, each founded upon the 1st section of the act of congress of March 3, 1823 (3 Stat. 771), which provides, that if any person or persons “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, 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…
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, District Judge.
The questions raised by the demurrer to the indictment are substantially the same in regard to each count. The papers referred to, and set forth, in the two counts are the same, and, in respect to each, it was argued, that the word “claim,” as used in the statute, can have reference only to a demand for money, and does not embrace a claim for bounty land. It is conceded that, if the word “claim” stood alone, it might apply to a demand for bounty land, but that, as used in the statute, in connection with the word “account,” it is entirely inapplicable to a claim of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Northwestern & Pacific Hypotheek Bank v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Jones v. United StatesUnited States Circuit Court · 1888