J'EDERAL REPORTER.
SIMONTON, J., (charging jury.) The defendant is indicted for sending through the mail an indecent ahd threatening postal-card. The card is produced, duly stamped, and a leUer-carrier testifies that he received it at the post-office, and delivered it. The government seeks to fasten the guilt on defendant by proof of the haq-dwriting, which it is alleged is that of the defendant. Two witnesses have been introduced for that purpose. Neither of them saw the defendant write the card in question. Both testify that they have seen him write, and from this experience swear to the handwriting. I am requested to charge you with respect to. such evidence. As a geneml rule a witness can only testify as to facts within his personal knowledge. Questions of are among the exceptions to this rule. Whether or not a paper is in the handwritof a. person, if none of the witnesses actually saw him write it, is a matter of opinion; and the witnesses can speak as to their opinion. In such cases thejury pass upon two questions. The first is as to the crediof the witness; the second is as to the. value to be given to his 9pinion.. This last question depends upon his opportunity and capac,tYofacqpiring the knowledge of the handwriting. Has he seen it un96r sllchcircumstances as to satiEify the jury that he knows it? In other it is not the expression of the opinion which is to satisfy the jury. ',rhey must conclude from the facts- stated by the witnf'ss, the times, and circumstapces under which he acquired his places, J.t,nowledge, whether he really knows it or not. In this connection the jury should consider the capacity and experience of the witness. If he illiteratE! man, or oJ?e whose business seldom brings him into Wcith writing and written documen,ts, his opinion would be entitled to much less weight than if he pc an educated man; himself a penman andto seeing people write; and this, even i! hebein nO,sense an expert. You have seen, these witnesses. You have heard ,xninute detail aU the meanl! of knowledge they had of the handwriting of the defendant. Your verdict will depend upon your conclusion from their testimony.
UNITJilP '\., "r
eT.A.TES ". GOWDY.,
(Diafr{ot (Jourt, E. D. S,o,Ufh.Oarolina. January dW,DlSAGAiNBT
,': ..It Isnota ground for an indictment drawn' under Rev. St. U.S. § !'; 5479. for aiding andprocurhig one to make a false affidavit for the purpose ,;, .prpcuring:apension. that the affidavit·was· in fact made before a proper officer. as that section applies also to the offense Of using a genuine butfa!se instrument. knowing it to be false. intent to defraud the United States. , '
AFFIDAVIT.
i:
,
I:'
under Rev. St. §5479.' Onqlotionioquasb. H. A. De SaU88ure and 0. M. Furman. 'Asst. U. S. AUya·. T. M. Gilland and J. A. Kelly, for defen,daJ?t.
TONI?UER fl·. QIIAMRERS.
833
SIMONTON, J. Defendant is indicted under section 5479, Rev. St. The charge in the indictment is that he procured and aided one Mary Conyers to make an affidavit stating certain things which are false, for the purpose of obtaining a pension and arrears of a pension as the widow of a solrlier of the war of 1812. The motion proceeds upon the ground that this section 5479 does not apply to a case in which the affidavit used was in fact taken before the proper officer, even though the statements made in it are false. In the case of U. S. v. Staats, 8 How. 41, the statute of 3d March, 1823, was construed. This statute was subsequentlyamended by act of 8th June, 1872, by the insertion of the word "affidavit" among the other writings mentioned in the statute, and is incor.porated in the Revised Statutes as section 5479. In that case it was held that the act punished not only the crime ,of forging certain instruments, or altering them when forged, but also the offense of using a genuine Qut false instrument, knowing it to be false, in support of a daim with intent to defraud the government. This case is decisive of the point made. The motion. to quash is refused.
TONDUER 'IJ. CHAMBERS
et al·.
(fJircuitOourt, W; D. Pennayl'IJania. , Jan11ary lQ, 1889.)
1.
PATENTS 'FOD lNVENTIONS-VALIDITY-FALSE STATEM:ENTAS TO CITIZENSHIP;
It is 'defense tp a for the infringement of letters ,patent grante!lun,del'the RevJsed ,Statutes that the patentee in his applicatioll there, for made oath that he was a citizen of the United States, when he was not; such misstatement as to his citizenship having been made innocently, through mistake, without any improper design whatever; , " '
.2.
Letterspatellt No. 258,156, dllted May 16,1882, for improvements in g.!assannealinl'\' furnaces,· granted to Cleon TondlJer, sustained; and the defendants adj qdglld, to inJriiIge the same. Following V. Stewart, 28 Fed. 'Rep, :061:
PROCESS.,
.
In Equity. ·Bill for infringement of patent. W. Ba/.Giuiell &; Sons, for complainant. George Harding and George J. Harding,
, .,
, ACHESQff,J:This is a suit defendants of letters, patent No. 258,156, for imlill'OVemants in glass-annealing furnaces, granted to Clean Tonduer, the' plaintiff,on May 16, 1882; a patent which this court already has had occasion' 'to Mnsioer in the <lase of Tondeur v., Stewart, 28 there was a decree in favor of the patentee. The present defelld8rJ;lts, parties to that suit, and as some new proofs adduCedPythem', this case has been. ,as if none of the. q;uestion,s involved. t;>,een passed on, and the conclusions I ftnnOunce'MVeheen of the grounds ofthefurmer :fI.Q8.tefulcqosiderati<;>n of in all its '