6e8 FBDEBAL BEFOGTSB. �Wm. P. Fiero, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States. �Stephen W. Fullerton, for defendant. �Before Blatohford, Benbdiot, and Choaus, JJ. �Bbnedict, D. J. The defendant was indioted under section 5485 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, by which statute it is made an offence for any agent or attorney, or any other peraon, in- strumental in prosecuting any claim for a pension, to wrongfully withhold from a pensioner the whole or any part of the pension allowed and due such pensioner. Having been found guilty, he now moves for a new trial and an arrest of judgment, upon varions grounds, which will be considered in the order of their presentation by the defendant. �It is first contended that the court erred at the trial in charging the jury that, upon the evidence, they would be justified in finding that the defendant was instrumental in the prosecution of the claim of Mrs. Eachel Helfrich to a pension, and also in declining to charge the jury that, if they believed the testimony of the defendant, they must find that the defendant was not instrumental in the prosecu- tion of Mrs. Helfrich's claim. In this, we think, there was no error. The statute, plainly, is not intended to be confined to the regular attorney for the pension claimant, recognized as such at the pension oface; for the language is, "any agent or attorney, or any other per- son." The testimony of the defendant, in regard to hia connection with the claim of Mrs. Helfrich, sufticiently showed that he was instrumental in the prosecution of the claim, within the meaning of the statute. �The next point taken is that error was committed at the trial in refusing to permit the defendant to show that Mrs. Helfrich, whohad claimed the pension as the widowed mother of John Helfrich, was married to one Henry Peters some 16 years ago. Here, the argu- ment is that the statute under which the defendant was indicted applies only to the withholding of a pension "allowed and due," and that no pension was due to Mrs. Helfrich if the fact be that she had married Henry Peters. But the evidence showed that the commis- sionerof pensions had passed upon Mrs. Helfrich's claim, had found her to be entitled to the pension, and had directed it to be paid to her by the name of Eachel Helfrich. This was conclusive of her right to the pension. The claim had been duly passed on by the officer authorized by law to determine the question of her right, and his finding was conclusive, as against the defendant, that the pension had been allowed and was due, within the meaning of the statute under ��� �
