State v. Holden
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Scott County Circuit Court. I. Tbe allegation of false swearing against tbe defendant in tbe indictment is not too general and indefinite. It is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity. It states that the “evidence was material to tbe issue at said trial.” This is sufficient, and it is not necessary to show bow it was material. Neither is it necessary that tbe record should show that tbe false oath was material. (Whart. Crim.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott County Circuit Court. I. Tbe allegation of false swearing against tbe defendant in tbe indictment is not too general and indefinite. It is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity. It states that the “evidence was material to tbe issue at said trial.” This is sufficient, and it is not necessary to show bow it was material. Neither is it necessary that tbe record should show that tbe false oath was material. (Whart. Crim. Law, § 2268; Campbell v. People, 8 Wend. 636.) If tbe allegation bad been so framed as to have implied materiality only, it would be sufficient.…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The indictment charges that in a certain action, 'etc., giving the court and parties, “ certain issues were therein joined in said court between said parties, and said issues came on to be tried, * * * and that, upon said trial, the said Philip Holden was duly sworn as a witness by the clerk of said court (said clerk then and there having competent authority to administer said oath), to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the said cause, touching the matters then and there in issue on said trial; that thereupon the said Holden did swear and testify in substance as…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WilksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. CaveSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Singer Manufacturing Co. v. GivensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. RhodesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- State v. WakefieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880