Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/589

 UNITED STATES V. GBISWOLD. 675 �claims. It does not appear at what time these frauduient practices first commenced, but the defendant Griswold seems to have been engaged in the business of purchasing and collecting claims against the government before the occurrence of the transactions under con- sideration. A party who could knowingly and deliberately obtain moneys by means of fraudaient practices, such as those resorted to by Griswold in obtaining the moneys covered by the judgment upon ■which this suit is based, is certainly capable of resorting to fraud- uient practices to cover up and protect property already acquired. The whole atmosphere eurrounding the transactions now in question is deeply tainted with fraud; and this condition of things tends to render a dishonest purpose highly probable in the pretended gift of Griswold to his wife. The maxim, noscitur a sociis, may well be applied to this voluntary settlement. �Could I be satisfied, as I should be glad to be, that the property in question was purchased by Mrs. Griswold with her own separate funds, even though such funds had been settled upon her by her hus- band, provided they were settled in good faith, as her sole and sepa- rate property, at a time and under circumstances which would legally justify such settlement, it would be my duty and pleasure, as a judge of this court, to protect her in its ownership and enjoyment. But in this instance the evidence does not appear to present such a case. The theory of the defence relied on, and the testimony and answers of Griswold and wife to support it, in view of all the testimony, can- not be accepted as entirely true. �There are remarkable, and, to my mind, irreconcilable discrepancies in the several statements of W. G. Griswold, made under oath at different times, as to the consideration, purpose, and character of the conveyances first to J. M. Adams, and from him to Chester Adams, and as to the bonds, claims, etc., in regard to which he was called apon to testify. Changes in the circumstances seem to have de- veloped new recollections and new views ; and the theory now relied on does not seem to have been fully developed till demanded by the exigencies of the defence of the present suit. The exact truth in re- gard to these matters can only be approximated by considering every part of these statements, conflicting and otherwise, in the light of all surrounding and attending circumstances. This I have carefully at- tempted to do, with the resuit already announced. Much might be said to support and illustrate the conclusions reached, but I do not deem it necessary, nor would it be profitable to again go over the field already so well covered by my associate. ��� �