
    JOHN H. CHARLES v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 12759.
    Decided March 24, 1884.]
    
      On the Facts.
    
    The claimant presents and is paid upon an Indian agent’s voucher, $14,024. The defendants set up by way of counter-claim that the voucher was fraudulent and without consideration. The court finds that none of the articles mentioned in the voucher were delivered to the defendants’.
    I. When none of the articles enumerated in a voucher was ever delivered the voucher is fraudulent.
    
      II. Money paid on a fraudulent voucher may be recovered back on a plea of counter-claim.
    III. When an official voucher is presented for payment which the officers of the government suspect to be fraudulent, they may properly refuse payment, and leave the claimant to'his remedy in this pourt.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    This action the claimant brought by the voluntary filing of his petition. No controversy arose on his demand, which was for the transportation of certain Indian supplies; but the defendants set up a counter-claim in regard to which the following facts were found:
    Some time in 1873 or 1874 the claimant presented to the defendants, through the proper disbursing and accounting officers, the following voucher, issued by John E. Tappan, then a United States Indian agent:
    
      The United States to John H. Charles, Dr.
    
    Date: Fort Berthold, D. T., September 29, 1873.
    For 145,000 lbs. flour, at .06|-................... $9,425 00
    ■ 25,470 “ bacon “ .15£.................... 3,947 85
    16,218 “ sugar “ .16£.................. 2, 675 97
    28,228 “ coffee “ .28£ ................... 7, 974 41
    $24,023 23
    
      u Twenty-four thousand and twenty-three dollars and twenty-three cents.
    “ I certify that the above articles have been purchased by me during the months of July, August, and September for the use of the Indians of this agency, and that the account is correct and just, and rendered necessary by reason of the failure of the corn crop, and by the total absence of game from this part of the country; that these articles will be taken up and properly accounted for in my return for the fourth quarter 1873.
    
      “ John E. Tappan,
    . “ U. S. Indian Agent.
    
    
      “ Received at--, 187-, of----,--dollars in full of the above account.
    “ John H. Charles.”
    
      Upon this voucher the claimant was paid by the defendants, August 22,1874, $11,500, and November 7, 1874, $2,524.39; in all, $14,024.39.
    No such flour, bacon, sugar, or coffee as that mentioned in said voucher was ever sold'or delivered by the claimant or anybody else to the defendants or a.ny of their agents, and none such was ever purchased or received by the defendants or their agents from the claimant or from anybody else directly or indirectly. Nor was there any consideration given in any form for the money paid thereon to the claimant.
    
      Mr. George A. King for the claimant.
    
      Mr. F. R. Howe (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants:
   Richardson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

That the claimant has a just demand against the defendants for the sum of $824.98, for transportation, as set out in his petition and in the findings of fact, has not been a matter of controversy.

The defendants have filed a counter-claim to recover back $14,024.39 alleged to have been paid to the claimant upon a voucher falsely and fraudulently purporting that such amount at the time of its payment was due and payable from the United States to him for certain subsistence stores stated therein to have been purchased by the United States of him, and by him delivered to the defendants’ officers at Fort Berthold, in Dakota Territory, whereas, it is further alleged, the stores described in said voucher were never furnished and delivered as therein certified to.

The findings of fact fully sustain the allegations of the counter-claim. The claimant received the $14,024.39 upon a fraudulent voucher issued by an Indian agent, purporting to be in consideration of certain stores delivered by him to said agent, while in point of fact the claimant never delivered any such stores, and the agent never received them, either from the claimant or from anybody else.

The whole transaction, as to issuing the voucher and collecting money thereon, is now proved to have been a complete fraud. That fraud the accounting officers had no means of detecting when they passed the account on which payments were made. Claimants are not required in the Treasury Department to prove their cases with all that strictness required here and in other courts of law. The department is not organized for the trial of cases in that way. The accounting officers have to depend upon the assumed integrity of other officers who have authority to receive supplies and issue vouchers, and no counsel appears before them to look up and interpose defenses. Affidavits and ex parte evidence constitute all that is presented in the support of claims.

When, in the course of the examination of accounts in the Departments, suspicions are aroused or doubts are entertained as to the validity of the demands of claimants, the parties may be sent to this court to prove their eases under the rules and forms of law, upon legal and competent evidence, or their demands may be rejected altogether, leaving the claimants to prosecute them here upon their own voluntary petitions, if they so desire. That is the main protection which the accounting officers can secure for themselves and for the government in the case of claims of doubtful validity in fact or in law, and especially of claims as to which there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud, irregularity, or error.

It is but a just and well deserved tribute to the public officers of the United States government generally, and to the vigilance of the accounting officers in particular, to say that in the immense business of this government cases of payment on fraudulent vouchers and claims are of rare occurrence.

The present case is one of the rare exceptions, and even here, although the accounting officers were at first deceived, as well they might have been, the fraud was suspected before much more than half the money demanded was paid, and the remainder was refused.

The defendants’ counter-claim is allowed, and for the balance over and above what is proved to be due the claimant on. his demand sued upon they will have judgment in the sum of $13,199.41.  