United States v. Gordon

22 F. 250

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: October 15, 1884
• Status: Published

Opinion

NetjSon, J.

The three counts in the indictment charge that the defendant, with others, conspired to defraud the government out of certain public lands. There is no separate and distinct offense charged. The second and third counts allege the means which the defendant intended to use to consummate the fraud. This mode of pleading is not objectionable, and the demurrer cannot be sustained for the reasons assigned: that separate and distinct offenses are charged. The first count is good. The section of the statute (5440) makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the United States in any manner, and the cases cited from the state courts which hold that a conspiracy to defraud is not criminal, unless it is a conspiracy to defraud in a manner made criminal by statute, have no application to indictments under section 5440. It is is immaterial what means were used to defraud, as it is criminal to conspire to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and the court does not care to know whether the modes adopted to accomplish the end proposed is made criminal or not. The second count is sufficiently clear in its statements, and the acts which it is alleged the defendant conspired to do would defraud the government. Each count is followed by allegation of a large number of acts done in pursuance of and to effect the object of the conspiracy, and these allegations are identical. , I think the lands are sufficiently described, and the defendant is reasonably informed of the particular instances intended and referred to. The third count is good. It charges with sufficient particularity that the defendant, with others, conspired to defraud the government out of the land by a pretended compliance with the pre-emption laws at the Duluth land-office, in which district the lands were situated. The fourth count is good. It charges that the defendant and others conspired to defraud the government out of the lands by a pretended compliance with the pre-emption laws, for the purpose of selling them to the defendant. It charges a contrivance to secure the privilege of pre-emption, and a combination to defraud the government.

Demurrer is overruled, with leave to plead.