UNITED STATES V. COQQIS. 495 �in this case was within the time limited by the "stàtute — ihat is, within the two years before the indictment was found — and constituted a presentment of a false claim to or against the United States for the payment of money, within the mean- ing of the statute. In this case it was not the entry upon the pension roU, nor the certificate issued, that was false or fraudaient. That was ail genuine and authentic. The cer- tificate issued was a genuine, true certificate, declaring that the defendant was entitled to a pension, but the slaim was fraudulent. That certificate had been obtained, according to the indictment, by fraud, and when it was presented, as the indictment alleges it was, to the pension agent at Milwaukee, it constituted a false and fraudulent claim against the United States, and upon that false and fraudulent claim ne obtained money, although the certificate was genuine. And that this was the meaning of the statute there can be no doubt, be- cause, immediately following the clause of the statute already referred to, is the case of a person who presents a fraudulent or false certificate, or who, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding to obtain, the payment or approval of such claim, makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry. So that the two classes of offence are distinct and separate : one speaking of a false claim in itself , knowing the claim to be false ; and another, a false certificate, knowing it to be false. So I hold that, although the fraud in obtaining the entry of the name of the defendant upon the pension roll, and the issuance of the cer- tificate, were within the statute of limitations, and so, if the offence were confined to that, it could be successfully made, yet, every time the defendant made a claim upon that genuine certificate, bis name being entered upon the pension roll, he committed one of the offences described in the statute, namely: he presented a claim to the government for pay- ment which was false and fraudulent, and which he knew, according to the language of the indictment, to be false and fraudulent. Therefore, it was a presentation of a false and ����
