ernment, the statute of limitations, sec. 156, Judicial Code, does not begin to run before he is compelled to make the refunds. Tricou v. U.S. (1930), 71 Ct. Cls. 356; Holmes v. U.S. (1932) 73 Ct. Cl. 693. Suits for rental and subsistence allowances.-The act of May 31, 1924, reenacted and amended sections 4, 5, and 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, which provided for rental and subsistence allowances to military officers with dependents, and created no new right. Running of the statute of limitations as to right of action for recovery of same was not postponed by the later act. Caudle v. U.S. (1931) 72 Ct. Cl. 331. An officer's right to rental and subsistence allowances does not accrue until the end of a given month, and the statute of limitations does not, as to the allowances for that month, begin to run until then. Page v. U.S. (1932) 73 Ct. Cl. 626. Laches. A claim brought one day within the limitation fixed by this section, for wrongful dismissal from the Marine Corps may nevertheless be barred by laches. Chamberlain v. U.S. (1928) 66 Ct. Cl. 317, certiorari denied (1929) 279 U.S. 845. 777. Petitions and verifications (Judicial Code, sec. 159). NOTES OF DECISIONS Pleadings and procedure in general.-Petition must plainly set forth case, and proof must so far correspond with allegations as not to introduce demands which defendant had no notice to meet. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. U.S. (1927) 63 Ct. Cl. 485, certiorari denied (1928) 276 U.S. 622. Ha. Enlistment in foreign armies (Criminal Code. sec. 10-Whoever, within te tiory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlists or enters himself, e insprains another person to enlist or enter himself or to go beyond the ints juristerion of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in he service of any foreign prince. State, colony, district, or people as a soldier y as a marine or seaman on board of any vessel of wat letter of marque, or prateer mail be fined not more than 1000 and imprisoned not more ju tires years: Provided. That this section shall not apply to citizens or subjects of any country engaged in war with a county with which the United States is at var. miess such citizen or subject of such foreign county shall hire or wliet 1 grizen of the United States to enlist or go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to enlist or enter the service of a foreign comicy. Enlistments under this proviso shall be mer regulatons prescribed by de Jecretary of War. Sec. 19, act of War. 4, 1909 35 Stat. 1084, as amended by act of Way 7, 1917 (40 Stat. 39) = 0.8.0 23:22. This provision was omitted from the original text of the Wilitary Laws, 1929. NOTES OF DECISIONS of the Cnited States with breathe To constiture the offense of misting ʼn The Chired States, he sent of the a enlisting is near. As the hiring or recaining of a person to beari with cent zo be enlisted requires de sent and intent on the part of the persons hired or recainest. The offense of enlisting under this statute is necessarily several, and can under no circumstances be joint. Id. Statute as matter of domestic or municipal right.-The acts of Congress prohibiting foreign enlistments is a matter of domestic or municipal right, as to which foreign governments have no right to inquire, the international offense being independent of the existence of a prohibitory act of Congress. (1855) 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 367. Raising troops in the United States.-It is a settled principle of the law of nations that no belligerent can rightfully make use of the territory of a neutral state for belligerent purposes without the consent of the neutral government. Hence the undertaking of a belligerent to enlist troops of land or sea in a neutral state, without the previous consent of the latter, is a hostile attack on its national sovereignty. (1855) 7 Atty. Gen. 367. A neutral state may, if it please, permit or grant to belligerents the liberty to raise troops of land or sea within its territory; but for the neutral state to allow or concede this liberty to one belligerent and not to all would be an act of manifest belligerent partiality and a palpable breach of neutrality. Id. O'Brien (C.C. 1896) 75 Fed. 900; U.S. v. And it being lawful for individuals to go abroad to enlist, they may go in any number and in any way they see fit, by regular lines of steamers, by chartering a vessel, or in any other manner, either separately or associated; provided, always, that they do not go as a military expedition, or set on foot or begin within our jurisdiction a military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from this country or provide or prepare the means therefor. U.S. v. O'Brien (C.C. 1896) 75 Fed. 900; U.S. v. Nunez (C.C. 1896) 82 Fed. 599. Great Britain, in attempting, by the agency of her military and civil authorities in the British North American provinces, and her diplomatic and consular functionaries in the United States, to raise troops here, committed an act of usurpation against the sovereign rights of the United States. Id. Right of citizen to enter service of foreign® government.-A citizen of one country may enter the military service of a foreign government without compromising the neutrality of his own. Chacon v. Eighty-Nine of Cochineal (C.C. 1821) Fed. Cas. No. 2,568, affirmed The Santissima Trinidad (1822) 7 Wheat. 283; Juando v. Taylor (D.C. 1818) Fed. Cas. No. 7,558. Engaging or hiring persons to enlist.This section uses "retain" as an alternative to "hire," and as meaning something different from the usual employment with payment in money; and one may be retained, in the sense of engaged, to render a service by a verbal promise, and by a prospect for advancement or payment in the future. Gayon v. McCarthy (1920) 252 U.S. 171; U.S. v. Hertz (C.C. 1855) 3 Pittsb. Leg. J. 194; Fed. Cas. No. 15,357. It is not essential to a hiring that the consideration be pecuniary, or that it be paid at once. U.S. v. Blair-Murdock Co. (D.C. 1915) 228 Fed. 77, reversed on other grounds Blair v. U.S. (C.C.A. 1917) 241 Fed. 217, certiorari denied (1917) 244 U.S. 655. Leaving country to enlist.-It is not a crime or offense against the United States under the provisions of this statute for an individual, whether he is or is not а citizen, to leave the country with intent to enlist in foreign military service. U.S. v. Hertz (C.C. 1855) 3 Pittsb. Leg. J. 194, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 357; U.S. v. Nunez (C.C. 1896) 82 Fed. 599; U.S. v. O'Brien (C.C. 1896) 75 Fed. 900; U.S. v. Kazinski (D.C. 1855) Fed. Cas. No. 15,508. See also Wiborg v. U.S. (1896) 163 U.S. 632, modifying U.S. v. Wiborg (D.C. 1896) 73 Fed. 159. Nor is it an offense to transport persons out of the United States, and land them in foreign countries, when such persons intend to enlist in foreign armies. U.S. v. Wiborg (D.C. 1896) 73 Fed. 159, modified Wiborg v. U.S. (1896) 163 U.S. 632; U.S. v. If there is an engagement on the one side to go beyond the limits of the United States with the intention to enlist, and on the other side an engagement that when the act shall have been done a consideration shall be paid to the party performing the services, the hiring and retaining are complete. U.S. v. Hertz (C.C. 1855) 3 Pittsb. Leg. J. 194, Fed. Cas. No. 15,357. A solemn contract of hiring in the United States is not necessary to constitute the offense. Foreign Enlistments (1855) 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 367, 377. "The word 'retain follows the word 'hire'. We should not expect to find it used in a meaning opposite to that of 'hire' and opposite to its own usual signification. Suppose it to be used in the sense of retain, and apply it to the enlisting of men here. It at once becomes impossible. It must be used in a sense that will apply to both. The nearest term is probably 'engage,' and it is used like the word 'retaining,' when speaking of retaining counsel, It is an 'engaging' of one party by the other, with the consent and understanding of both." U.S. v. Kazinski (D.C. 1855) 2 Sprague, 7; Fed. Cas. No. 15,508. It is not necessary that the persons be entirely enlisted in the United States, but it is sufficient if they are hired or retained to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or enter into the service of a foreign state. Foreign Enlistments (1855) 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 367. It was an offense under Act April 20, 1818 (incorporated in part on this section) to engage a person to go beyond the limits of the United States to enlist in the service of a foreign country, where there was an intention that a consideration should be paid therefor. U.S. v. Hertz (C.C. 1855) Fed. Cas. No. 15,357. Enlistment of seamen in American port.The enlistment of seamen or others for marine service on Mexican steamers in the port of New York, they not being Mexicans transiently within the United States, it is a clear violation of the second section of Act April 20, 1818, c. 88 (similar to this section), and the persons enlisted, as well as the officers enlisting them, were liable to the penalties thereby incurred. (1844) 4 Op. Atty. Gen. 336. Enlistment for service of colony in rebellion. Quaere, whether a colony in a state of rebellion was embraced by Act 1794 prohibiting the enlistment of soldiers, etc., within the limits of the United States to enter the service of any foreign prince or state. Chacon v. Eighty-Nine Bales of Cochineal (C.C. 1821) Fed. Cas. No. 2,568, affirmed The Santissima Trinidad (1822) 7 Wheat. 283. A colony in rebellion is within the law of nations relating to the rights of neutrals, without regard to its status as a state. Id. Persons liable.-All persons engaged in such undertaking to raise troops in the United States for the military service of Great Britain, whether citizens or foreigners, individuals or officers, unless protected by diplomatic privilege, are indictable as malefactors by statute. (1855) 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 367. Foreign consuls are not exempted, either by treaty or the law of nations, from the penal effect of the statute. And in case of indictment of any such consul or other official person, his conviction of the misdemeanor, or his escape by reason of arranged instructions or contrivances to evade the operation of the statute, is primarily a matter of domestic administration, altogether subordinate to the consideration of national insult or injury to this government involved in the fact of a foreign government instructing its officers to abuse, for unlawful purposes the privi leges which they happen to enjoy in the United States. Id. A foreign minister, who engages in the enlistment of troops here for his government, is subject to be summarily expelled from the country; or, after demand cr recall, dismissed by the President. Id. A native American who had become naturalized under the laws of France was held still subject to indictment in the United States courts for serving on a French privateer engaged in committing hostil ities against a power at peace with the United States. Williams' Case (C.C. 1799) Fed. Cas. No. 17,708. But see Sec. 15, Title 8, Aliens and Citizenship. Pleading. In a prosecution for hiring or retaining another to enlist the indictment must allege the intent of the person nired. U.S. v. Kazinski (D.C. 1855) 2 Sprague, 7: Fed. Cas. No. 15,508. Evidence. The intention of the party hired or retained to enlist is gathered from his conduct and declarations in the United States and after he reaches the foreign country, and from the action of third per sons with whom he perfects the enlistment which he may have contracted in the United States. U.S. v. Hertz (C.C. 1855) 3 Pittsb. Leg. J. (Pa.) 194; Fed. Cas. No. 15,357. In a prosecution under this statute for hiring or retaining another to enlist, the hiring and retaining in the United States and the intent with which the person was so hired or retained must be proved. U.S. v. Kazinski (D.C. 1855) 2 Sprague, 7; Fed. Cas. No. 15,508. The persons alleged to have been hired may testify as to their intent without criminating themselves. Id. Their declarations while on board a vessel and on their way to the place where the enlistment was to be consummated were held admissible, in so far as they were made within the district in which the prosecution was brought. Declarations of their prior intention at another point were not admissible in the absence of proof of the hiring or retaining by the defendant within the district in which the suit was brought. Id. In a proceeding to remove a person to another state in which he was indicted for conspiring to retain a citizen to enlist in the Mexican revolutionary forces, evidence held to tend to show a violation of this section and to show probable cause for believing defendant guilty of conspiring to compass such violation. Gayon v. McCarthy (1920) 252 U.S. 171. Directing verdict.-On a trial for violation of this section the court has no power to direct the jury to return a verdict of guilty, pursuant to an agreed statement of facts between the government and the defendant, regardless of the jury's own view respecting the proper conclusion to be drawn from the facts agreed upon. Blair v. U.S. (C.C.A. 1917) 241 Fed. 217, reversing for that reason a judgment of conviction in U.S. v. Blair Murdock Co. (D.C. 1915) 228 Fed. 77, and holding that the constitutional right to trial by jury in a criminal case cannot be waived. Civil consequences of violation.-An agreement to serve in a foreign navy made in the United States in violation of this The Santissima Trinidad (1822) 7 Wheat. -provision is illegal and void, and persons - who have made such an agreement may. withdraw from it and demand their dis ! I charge before they are transferred to the service of the foreign government. Dustin v. Murray (D.C. 1871) Fed. Cas. No. 4,201, holding, however, that the libelants could not recover wages, as upon the evidence their illegal service was voluntary. In Juando v. Taylor (D.C. 1818) 2 Paine, 652; 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,558, the defendant was sued for damages on account of his seizure in 1816, of a vessel and cargo of the plaintiff, a Spanish subject, there being at that time a civil war between the colony of Buenos Ayres and Spain, and the defendant's acts having been committed as commander of Buenos Ayrean ship of war, to which government the defendant had sworn allegiance. The court, Van Ness, J., held that the defendant was not liable, 283. In a proceeding by the owner for the restitution of a vessel condemned as prize on the ground that the force of the captor, a foreign vessel, had been increased by enlistment in the ports of the United States, the burden in the first instance of showing that this increase within the prohibition of the statute has taken place, is on the owner. When this has been done, the burden is on the captors to show that persons so enlisted were within the exception provided by R.S. 5291, incorporated in Sec. 30 of this title. The Estrella (La. 1819) 4 Wheat. 208. Naturalization of offender.-An application for citizenship by one who within a year has pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to hire others to enlist in the service of a foreign king, in violation of this section, and has been sentenced to pay a fine therefor, although subsequently pardoned by the President, will be denied naturalization, as not having fulfilled the statutory requirements of behaving as a man well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. In re Addis (D.C. 1918) 252 Fed. 886. Restoration of prize taken by unlawful crew.-Prize goods taken by a neutral war ship with a crew unlawfully enlisted in the United States must be restored to the original owner when they are brought within the power of the United States. Chacon v. Eighty-Nine Bales Cochineal (C.C. 1821) 1 Brock, 478; Fed. Cas. No. 2,568, affirmed 799. Forging or altering public records (Criminal Code, sec. 28). NOTES OF DECISIONS False or forged affidavits.-Acquittal on count charging falsely making affidavit held consistent with conviction for uttering and publishing and presenting it to clerk of court. Martin v. U.S. (C.C.A. 1927) 22 F. (2d) 410. Letters facilitating fraud against immi- Application to Civil Service Commission.- application for civil service examination is not within this section. U.S. ex rel. Starr v. Mulligan (C.C.A. 1932) 59 F. (2d) 200. Evidence. Evidence regarding conversation between alien and American consul in which alien used misstatements defendant advised, through letter, to defraud United States, held admissible. Goldsmith v. U.S. (C.C.A. 1930) 42 F. (2d) 133, certiorari denied (1930) 282 U.S. 837. Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for transmitting forged letter to American consul to cause him to authenticate passport and thereby defrauding. Goldsmith v. U.S. (C.C.A. 1930) 42 F. (2d) 133. 806. False claims against the United States (Criminal Code, sec. 35). NOTES OF DECISIONS Offenses and elements in general.-The making of false statements in written application for civil service examination is not within this section. U.S. ex rel. Starr v. Mulligan (C.C.A. 1932) 59 F. (2d) 200. Amendment of 1918.-The amendment of 1918 included in this section those offenders who, by their cheating, swindling, or defrauding, caused a "pecuniary or property loss " y made |