Viewing page 66 of 272

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

has been mustered out about six months.
     
I can find no other authority by which military jurisdiction is conferred in any similar case except the act of Congress approved March 2, 1863, the second section of which allows of trial by court martial after discharge or dismissal, but I do not think that the provisions of the act embrace the case stated.
      
The title of the act is "an act to prevent and punish frauds against the United States" It does not seem to reach any case except where some false, fictitious or fraudulent claim against the United States, is presented, made, forged, uttered &c. The essence of the offence is in respect to the cheating, defrauding or injuring the United States. It seems that the claim in this case was a correct one, as against the United States, and the voucher genuine. The conduct of the party complained of was improper, not in presenting the vouchers forwarded by Lt. Kay, but in not refunding to him the money advanced by him from his private funds and at his own risk, to pay the same.
     
It will also be remarked that the act above alluded to is penal in its character and must be construed strictly. Also that if it could be resorted to it does not provide for any restitution of the money. The penalty is fine and imprisonment upon sentence of a court martial, but even if that 

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2023-11-17 15:45:39