People v. Platt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustaining a demurrer to an information. The defendant was informed against for the crime of peijury, alleged to have been committed in falsely swearing to the correctness of certain schedules and inventories filed by him in insolvency proceedings instituted under the Insolvent Act of April 16, 1880. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
It seems to be conceded that a petitioner in insolvency who - should wilfully omit from his schedule any of his property, and then verify his petition, schedule, and inventory in the form and manner prescribed by law, would be guilty of perjury, were it not for a provision in the insolvent act which makes such omission a misdemeanor. And the respondent insists that the latter act “creates a misdemeanor of what before was a felony,” and that “the old law is gone by reason of the repugnance, and the offender can only be indicted under the new.” But the latter act does not make the verification…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. ClaflinSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Rawson v. RawsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
3Cited by28 opinions
- People v. BurkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- In re MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- DIGLIO EX REL. DIGLIO v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Parker v. ZanghiNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
- Liguori v. Allstate Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.