STATON V. UNITED STATES.
253
constitutional provision in' that regard, in the proper district in the state of Illinois from which this fraudulent matter was transmitted,where it was placed in the post office. It might not be out of place to say that this indictment, in charging the gist of the offense, says: "So devising and intending in and for executing such scheme and' artifice to defraud, and for the obtaining of money under false pretenses, and attempting so to do, cause to be conveyed and delivered by mail, in the district aforesaid." Now, I think, there is grave room for doubt as to whether that language is sufficient to charge as a penal offense the placing of the mail in the post office. It would seem to me language more appropriately fitted to charge the second and third of the offenses contained in the lottery act; i. e. the sending, which is the second, and delivering, which is the third. But it is not necessary, as I think, for me to express a definite opinion upon that. It is hardly necessary to point out the distinction between the character of cases that we are dealing with and the case of an extradition by the l!overnor of one state upon the requisition of the governor of another state in which the offen,se is committed. No doubt, where goods are obtained by fraudulent pretenses which are initiated in another state, and they produce their effect in the state in question, the matter might fall under the· general doctrine that where an offense is committed in part in one state, and in part in another, the case may be prosecuted in either jurisdiction. But what we have to deal with is simply a federal statute, and not one relating to common-law offenses, or the practice growing out of state prosecutions, and the reclamation of fugitives from justice upon the demand of the governor of one state upon the governor of another. For these reasons, I think, the order of removal must be denied, and the respondent discharged.. STATON v. DN'ITED STATES. (CIrcuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 20, 1898.) No. 1,035. 1. DEFRAUDING UNITED STATES-FORGED AFFIDAVIT.
One presenting accounts to the government cannot be convicted onder Rev. St. §§ 5418, 5479, for forging the name of a justice of the peace to the affidavit attached thereto, unless It be done to defraud the United States.
ll.
BAME-INDICTMENT.
An Indictment charging that defendant forged the name of a justice of the peace to accounts presented by him to the government accounting officers, "with Intent to defraud the United States," must be regarded as based on Rev. St. §§ 5418, 5479, and not on section 5421, which denounces the making, altering, forging, etc., of papers, for the purpose of "obtaining or receiving · · · from the United States or any ot their officers or agents any Bum ot'money."
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. . G. W. Murphy, for plaintiff in error. Edward C.Stringer, U. S. Atty.
254 DIstrIct Judge. _
88 FEDERAI,o REPORTlllR.
and ' :, ,,:,:
Judges, an,.d SBIRAS, ., , ,
. THAYER, CirQuit Judge. ,Ben R,\Staton,the plainttlt in was indicted undE'W an indictment,containing two counts, in the district court of the. United States for tbe.Eastern district of Arkansas. The indictment on its. face purpqrted to have been framed on the of sections 5418,5421, and 5479 of the· Revised Statutes of the United States."The first count of the indictment that said Staton, on July 3, 1894, in the Western division of the Eastern district of Admnsas, "did tben and there willfully, unlawfully, willingly, falsely, and feloniously make and forge a certain affidavit and writing to his quarterly postal account and return for the quarter June 30, 1894, to the auditor for. the post-office department, which said affidavit and writing is in words and1J,gures as follows, to wit." The alleged forged affidavit was then setout inhrec verba, :the same being an affidavit which ,purported to have been sworn to before "M. R Stokes, J. P.." and was,in form and substance the usual affidavit which postmasters are to affix Qr.attach to their quarterly reports. The second count of the indictmeJ,lt charged the accused with the, commission of a similar offense On October 2, 1894,.in that he had attached to his quarterly return for the quarter ending September SO, 1894, a forged affidavit made, before "M. H. Stokes, J. P." The second count, however, differed from the first count in that it further alleged that M. H.,Stokes, justice of thepell,ce, did, not sign his name to said affidavit; that the name of the justi<;ehad been signed thereto by said Staton; and that the ,act was c.Qll1Jllitted by the accused "with intent to defraud the United States,(,lOntfary to the form ,of thestatuteiqsnch case made and provided." Thl'lfirst count of the indictment contained no allegations similar to th()se last aforesaid charging that the accused had signed the name of Stokes with an in{ent to defraud. On the trial of the indictment, the accused testified in his own favor, in substance, as follows: That while he did sign the name of "M. H. Stokes, 'J. P.," to each of the quarterly reports of date June 30 andSeptemlH:!r 30,1894, yet that the name of the justice was so signed by direction of said j,usticebecause the latter was busy at the time, and did not wish to take tp.e tl.'{}uble to aJ,li1 his official signature to the reports; that the returns were in all ,respects true and correct; and' that the defendant bad no purpose Or' intent to defraud the'United States or to obtain money or credit to which he was not .' . ' ..,. ., ., ,.' '. ' The defendant,rrequested the trial oo;ort to charge, the jury in his behalf as folIows: l items' lllbraced in the returns or accounts were 'correct, andeontained' no false'entry or claiDliRnd there was no i,u,tent oIi the"patfOf the to, government something that he was not 'entitled' to in the waYJ)fWQney or credit, heis entitled t()anacquittal." But the court declined to do so, and thereiIponcMl'ged'the jury to the 'contrary of ll'nd in substance as follows: That, even if the accused'd'U'fha:ve authority from Stokes to sign the latter'smame to the jur.a.ts"wJ1jch were. attached to the affidavits to his quarterly reports,Yl¥t;ill.S'a: perSOn clin·