holding arrearages of pay and bounty, and in the tenth with withholding pay and bounty.

Since the act in which this offence is described makes no provision for pay or for bounty, and the fees regulated and the acts forbidden are those done in regard to that act, it seems a reasonable construction of the penal part of the statute that withholding pay and bounty, which are not mentioned there, are not intended to be punished by the act.

It is not in reference to pay that Congress was legislating. The persons described who may be guilty are those prosecuting claims for pensions or bounty before the pension office. The offence described is "withholding from a pensioner or other claimant the whole or any part of the claim allowed and due said pensioner or claimant," and it is but a just limitation of the word "claimant" that he should be a claimant under that act, a claimant before the pension bureau. This part of the section is to be taken in connection with the taking of illegal fees, which manifestly refers to cases before the pension office, and which are described and punished in the same sentence and by the same penalty. The word "bounty" is not used in this sentence, nor the word "pay," but the argument is that the word "claim" includes them. We think this would be an unjustifiable extension of a penal statute beyond its terms and against its purpose.

The first question is, therefore, to be answered in the negative, and we need not inquire if the statute was repealed, since the offence described in the indictment is not within it.

The offences in this indictment are said to have been committed in 1868. The law then in existence did not make the act charged a crime. It is argued by counsel that withholding the money due is a continuous offence, and if the same money was withheld after the act of 1873 did make such withholding punishable, the indictment is good under that act. But without deciding here how far the withholding the money under a law which made that an offence when the wrongful withholding began, can be held to be a continuous offence, we are of opinion that it would be a forced construction of the act to hold that it was intended to apply to a case where the money had already been withheld five years when the statute was passed. The

party might very well be criminally wrong in failing to pay when he received it; but Congress could hardly be supposed to intend to punish as a crime his failure to pay afterwards what was in law but a debt created five years before.

This answers the fifth question, namely, "Can the defendant be punished under sect. 31 of the act of March 3, 1873?' These answers also render unnecessary a reply to the others.

It is, therefore, ordered to be certified to the Circuit Court that the first and fifth questions are answered in the negative, and that answers to the others are thereby rendered unnecessary.

So ordered

UNITED STATES v. IRVINE.

An indictment against A., found Sept. 15, 1875, charged that on Dec. 24, 1870, B. demanded of him the sum of $525, which he as her agent and attorney had collected and received from the United States on account of a pension awarded to her, and that he then, and continuously thereafter, wrongfully withheld it from her. Held, 1. That the indictment was barred by sect 1044 of the Revised Statutes. 2. That the crime charged was not a continuous one to the time of finding the indictment.

CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States. No counsel appeared for Irvine.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant, Clark Irvine, is charged in the indictment in this case, that on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1870, as the agent and attorney of Mrs. Berkely, he wrongfully withheld from her the amount of her pension, to wit, $525, allowed her under the pension laws, and continuously withheld it until the time of finding the indictment in September,

The indictment comes within the terms of the act of 1864, which we have considered in United States v. Benecke, supra, p. 447.

But the judges have certified to us, among other questions, whether the act of July 8, 1870, does not repeal the thirteenth section of the act of 1864.

By the third section of the later act, pensions are forbidden to be paid to attorneys and agents any more, and are required to be paid directly to the pensioner. It is not easy to see, therefore, how the attorney is to get possession of the money, and how he can withhold it, or why there should be any longer a law for punishing him for such withholding.

The statute revises the act of 1864 as regards fees of such attorneys, and increases the punishment for exacting more fees than the law allows, but totally omits any penalty for withholding. Sects. 7 and 8, act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 195.

It is argued that this omission was intentional, for the reason above stated; and as the statute repeals all acts in conflict with its provisions, it was intended to repeal the penalty for withholding prescribed by the act of 1864. The argument is not without force; but without deciding that point, we prefer to answer another question, which will decide the present case.

The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations of two years as a bar to the indictment, and the court, having refused him the benefit of the bar on trial, now certify other questions on that subject, namely: 2. Is the crime a continuous one down to the time of finding the indictment? 3. Does the Statute of Limitations constitute a bar to this prosecution, the indictment having been found Sept. 15, 1875?

It is not very easy to define for all purposes what constitutes under the statute a withholding of the pension. It cannot commence, of course, until the money is received by the party charged. Nor can it commence then, unless there is a duty of immediate payment to the pensioner. A reasonable time must certainly be allowed for this. What that is must depend in each case on its own circumstances. A refusal to pay on demand without just excuse would constitute withholding at once. Such delay as would show an intention to evade payment would constitute a withholding. If there is nothing but

careless delay, the party might hold the money for some time without incurring this severe penalty of two years imprisonment. In short, there must be such unreasonable delay, some refusal to pay on demand, or some such intent to keep the money wrongfully from the pensioner, as would constitute an unlawful withholding in the meaning of the law.

But whatever this may be which constitutes the criminal act of withholding, it is a thing which must be capable of proof to a jury, and which, when it once exists, renders the party liable to indictment.

There is in this but one offence. When it is committed, the party is guilty and is subject to criminal prosecution, and from that time, also, the Statute of Limitations applicable to the offence begins to run.

It is unreasonable to hold that twenty years after this he can be indicted for wrongfully withholding the money, and be put to prove his innocence after his receipt is lost, and when perhaps the pensioner is dead; but the fact of his receipt of the money is matter of record in the pension office.

He pleads the statute of two years, a statute which was made for such a case as this; but the reply is, You received the money. You have continued to withhold it these twenty years; every year, every month, every day, was a withholding, within the meaning of the statute.

We do not so construe the act. Whenever the act or series of acts necessary to constitute a criminal withholding of the money have transpired, the crime is complete, and from that day the Statute of Limitations begins to run against the prosecution.

In the case before us, the judges certify that it appeared on the trial that the pensioner demanded her money of defendant on the 24th of December, 1870, and he refused to pay her, and had never paid her up to the finding of the indictment, Sept. 15, 1875; that he requested the judge to instruct the jury to acquit him, because the offence was barred by the Statute of Limitations, which the court refused to do.

We think the statute (Rev. Stat., sect. 1044) was a bar; and we say in answer to the second question, that the crime, as shown in this case, was not a continuous one to the time of the

indictment; and to the third, that the Statute of Limitations constitutes a bar to this prosecution.

The answers to these two questions dispose of the case, and will be certified to the Circuit Court, and it is

So ordered.

JENNISON v. KIRK.

1. The ninth section of the act of Congress of July 26, 1866, "granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes," enacted, "that whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and own. ers of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals, for the pur poses aforesaid, is hereby acknowledged and confirmed: Provided, however, that whenever, after the passage of this act, any person or persons shall, in the construction of any ditch or canal, injure or damage the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage." Held, 1. That this section only confirmed to the owners of water-rights and of ditches and canals on the public lands of the United States the same rights which they held under the local customs, laws, and decisions of the courts, prior to its passage. 2. That the proviso conferred no additional rights upon the owners of ditches subsequently constructed, but simply rendered them liable to parties on the public domain whose possessions might be injured by such construction.

2. The origin and general character of the customary law of miners stated and explained.

3. By that law, the owner of a mining claim and the owner of a water-right in California hold their respective properties from the dates of their appropriation, the first in time being the first in right; but where both rights can be enjoyed without interference with or material impairment of each other, the enjoyment of both is allowed.

4. By that law, a person cannot construct a ditch to convey water across the mining claim of another, taken up and worked according to that law before the right of way was acquired by the ditch owner, so as to prevent the further working of the claim in the usual manner in which such claims are worked, nor so as to cut off the use of water previously appropriated by the miner for working the claim, or for other beneficial purposes.

5. Accordingly, where the owner of a mining claim worked by the method known as the hydraulic process," cut and washed away a portion of a ditch so as to let out the water flowing in it, the ditch having been so con