Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/58

50 FBDEBAL BBPOSTBB. �ment to and by a person in the civil service of the United States, to-wit, Edward Ferguson, a pension agent of the United States, at the city of Milwaukee, a claim against the government of the United States, to-wit, a claim for the sum of $24, then and there olaimed and represented by the defend- ant to be due to him from the said government of the United States as a pensioner, und^r and by virtue of a certain instru- ment knotvn as a pension certificate, which said pension certi- ficate had been theretofore procured and obtained by the said Eichard Goggin upon false and fraudulent proofs, and with- out the authority of law, and in fraud of the iaw goveming pensions and pension certificates ; he, the said Eichard Gog- gin, well knowing.at the time and place of making said claim, and of presentîng the same for payment, that it was then and "there false, fictitiouB and fraudulent. Objection is made to the indictment as not stating any offence, the argument be- ing that no offence is described with such certainty as the law of criminal pleading requires. The reply of the learned district attorney is that it states the offence substantially in the language of the statute, and that this is sufficient. It will be observed that the gist of the offence, as we and it defined in the statutes, is the presentation for pàyment of a false and fraudulent claim. �The indictment alleges no facts which constikite the fraud ; it is not shown how the fraud was perpetrated, nor wherein the claim was false, except that the defendant presented a claim which he represented to be due to him by virtue of a pension certificate, which had been theretofore procured upon false and fraudulent proofs, and by unlawful and fraudulent devices, and without authority of law. What the false and fraudulent proofs, and unlawful and fraudulent devices were, is not stated. The question is, are these allegations suffi- ciently certain, and do they contain statements of fact which will support a conviction ? My impression, upon the argument, was that the objection urged by counsel for defendant was one which went rather to the form than to the substance of the indictment, and that, as he had not moved to quash, his ■objection was not good in arrest of judguient; but the rule ��� �