United States v. Plyler, 222 U.S. 15 (1911)

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Plyler, 222 U.S. 15 (1911)

United States v. Plyler

No. 440

Argued October 19, 1911

Decided October 30, 1911

222 U.S. 15

Syllabus

It is not essential to charge or prove an actual financial or property loss to make a case of defrauding the United States.

Section 5418, Rev.Stat., prohibits the forging of written vouchers required upon examination by the Civil Service Commission of the United States and presenting such vouchers to the Commissioners.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 222 U. S. 16

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Plyler, 222 U.S. 15 (1911)

United States v. Plyler

No. 440

Argued October 19, 1911

Decided October 30, 1911

222 U.S. 15

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Syllabus

It is not essential to charge or prove an actual financial or property loss to make a case of defrauding the United States.

Section 5418, Rev.Stat., prohibits the forging of written vouchers required upon examination by the Civil Service Commission of the United States and presenting such vouchers to the Commissioners.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 222 U. S. 16

Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court. By MR. JUSTICE HOLMES:

This is an indictment for forging vouchers required upon examination by the Civil Service Commission of the United States, certifying to the character, physical capacity, etc., of the applicant, the defendant, and for presenting the same to the Commission. The district court held that the acts were not frauds against the United States within the contemplation of Rev.Stat. § 5418, and

Page 222 U. S. 17

discharged the defendant. The government excepted, and brought the case to this Court. It now must be regarded as established that "it is not essential to charge or prove an actual financial or property loss to make a case under the statute." The section covers this case. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 216 U. S. 480; Curley v. United States, 130 F. 1; United States v. Bunting, 82 F. 883.

Judgment reversed.