tlNITED STATES ». OONNALLT. 783 �instrumental in prosecuting the claim of the applicant for a pension, and being thus instrumental the money of the pensioner should corne into his hands, and he should unlaw- fully ■withhold it from the pensioner, that it was to be an offence for which he was to be punished, notwithstanding the act of 1870, as incorporated in the Revised Statutes, section 4766, declares that the pension money shall be paid to no one else than the pensioner; and that, while this was thepurpose of the law, it must also be presumed it was the intention, if under any cùrcumstances while a person was instrumental in prosecuting a claim or a pension, and the money of a pen- sioner came into his hands and he unlawfuUy withheld it, he was to be subjected to punishment. To take any other view of the case would be to strike out of the Eevised Statutes one of its sections obviously intended to be enforced. �There is said to be error by the court in the instructions given to the jury. In examining the instructions carefully I see no objection that could be made to them upon what I understand were the conceded facts of the case. There was a portion of the charge in which the court asked the jury whether it was not probable or not natural that a certain theory of the facts was the true one. And the question is, whether there is anything in this that could be properly said to withhold from the jury the right to determine absolutely the facts in the case. The way it was put was this : Refer- ring to certain facts which were not disputed, the court said, "Bearing in mind that the defendant wanted more of the money than he was entitled to by law for any assistance rendered by him in the transaction, (the claim for pension,) and that he induced the pensioner to go ail the way from the Boldiers' home to Lafayette for the purpose of getting part of the money, as he says, in payment of his legal services in getting pensioner and his wife out of jail, and that the defendant and Orth went to Culver, where Orth got possession of the check, is it not probable, " the court says, "that the defendant would get the money into his own hands and retain the amount that he wanted to keep, paying only the balance ��� �
