UNITED STATES
v.
HERR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The defendant was indicted under federal law for unlawfully procuring a person to prepare and present a false affidavit regarding coal land claims to the Secretary of the Interior. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the indictment, holding that when the statute was properly construed, the charges stated no offense because the affidavit was filed only at a local land office rather than actually presented to the Secretary of the Interior as the statute required.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The indictment in this case contains two counts, each purporting to charge the commission of an offense in violation of Rev. Stat., § 4746, as amended.
The substantial charge in each count is that the defendant unlawfully procured a named person, in connection with a preferential entry of coal lands, to make and present to the Secretary of the Interior, by and through the register and receiver of the United States Land Office at Durango, Colorado, an affidavit at purchase, which was false and fraudulent in specified particulars. A demurrer to the indictment was filed and the validity of each count was assailed on many grounds. In disposing of the demurrer it was assumed by the District Judge, as conceded by the Government, that the affidavit was not, in fact, presented to the Secretary of the Interior, but was simply filed in the local land office.
The demurrer was sustained, “for reasons given on consideration of the second count in the indictment,” in the case against F. W. Keitel et al. The case at bar comes within the principles, applied by us in No. 287, just decided, where, in passing upon the rulings made below in the Keitel case, it was held that the second count of the indictment there considered, when the statute was correctly construed, stated no offense. The judgment below, which involved a similar ruling, is therefore
Affirmed.