United States v. Smith
District Court, D. Oregon
On August 6, 1869, the defendant [William K. Smith] was indicted for -the crime of perjury, in swearing to his income return. 4 Stat. 118; 12 Stat. 309. The indictment alleged in substance and effect that the defendant on March 22, 1869, made an affidavit before the assistant assessor of the Fourth division of the district aforesaid, that a certain statement then made by him contained a full, true, particular and correct account of defendant’s income subject to income tax…
Read the full summary
On August 6, 1869, the defendant [William K. Smith] was indicted for -the crime of perjury, in swearing to his income return. 4 Stat. 118; 12 Stat. 309. The indictment alleged in substance and effect that the defendant on March 22, 1869, made an affidavit before the assistant assessor of the Fourth division of the district aforesaid, that a certain statement then made by him contained a full, true, particular and correct account of defendant’s income subject to income tax for the year 1868; and that he had not received, and was not entitled to receive from any and all sources of income…
1Opinion of the Court
DEADY, District Judge.
The motion for a new trial is based on the following grounds: (1) Misconduct of James Winston, one oí the trial jurors. (2) Newly-discovered evidence. (3) Insufficiency of .the evidence'to justify the verdict. (4) That the verdict is against law. (5) That the defendant was taken by surprise by the testimony of Mellen, the assistant assessor.
On the first trial, when the prosecution offered in evidence the defendant’s statement of income for the year 1868, the defense objected to the proof because the assignment of perjury in the indictment was too general—merely…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Epstein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Bourn v. McLaughlinDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1927
- United States v. HardisonDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1905