Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/60

52 FEDERAL REPORTER �ness as to the matter clmrged. It is also a general rule that in an indictment for an offence created by statute it is suffi- cieiit to describe the offence in the words of the statute. �In the case of the V. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360, the supreme court had occasion to point out the precise scope and limitations of this rule, and after stating the rule Justice Harlan says, in the opinion: "But to this general rule there is the qualification, fundamental in the law of criminal pro- cedure, that the accused must be apprised by the indict- ment, with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusa- tion against him, to the end that he may prepare his defence, and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecu- tion for the saimie offence." And here, I think, we strike the fatal point in this indictment ; for, after as careful and seri- ous consideration as a case of this nature requires, I am unable to see how defendant conld plead his present conviction under this indictment, and a judgment thereon, in bar of a second prosecution for the same offence. It is alieged, only, that lie presented to the j)ension agent a daim for pension moneys under a pension certificate which was procured by false and fraudulent proofs, and unlawful and fraudulent devices. The fraud should have been, by apt allegation, more particularly identified; it should have been alieged what the proofs and devices were, and wherein they were fraudulent; and it is, in my judgment, immaterial when the proofs were made, or devices resorted to — whether at the time of presenting the claim, or at a time anterior — and when made, as the basis for obtaining the pension certificate. If the fradulent devices had consisted of an act done when payment was demanded, it would, I tliink, be clear that the nature of the devices, or particular fraud practiced at the time, should be alieged, and, if this is so, it seems also essential that they should be alieged, though they were, in fact, practiced at and before the time of obtaining the pension certificate. The offence, it is true, was one committed, not in 1867, but in 1877 and in 1878 — that is, a claim was pre- sented for payment at those times — but, going back to the origin of the alieged fraud, I do not understand why it is not ��� �