State v. Bishop
Supreme Court of Vermont
THÍ3 was 'an indictment for perjury. Francis Goodrich had brought an action on book against George Bishop before Justice Osgood; on the trial of which, Bishop produced his book, containing certain charges against Goodrich, the plaintiff in the action, and thereupon the interrogatory oath was administered by the Justice to Bishop, and he swore fully and circumstantially to the articles charged oh his book, when the Justice’s Court was adjourned to a future day.
Read the full summary
THÍ3 was 'an indictment for perjury. Francis Goodrich had brought an action on book against George Bishop before Justice Osgood; on the trial of which, Bishop produced his book, containing certain charges against Goodrich, the plaintiff in the action, and thereupon the interrogatory oath was administered by the Justice to Bishop, and he swore fully and circumstantially to the articles charged oh his book, when the Justice’s Court was adjourned to a future day. At the adjourned Court, Goodrich produced witness to disprove that which Bishop had sworn to on the former hearing. — Upon which…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Where a person is interested in the conviction as where it ■ may be a mean of reversing a judgment rendered against such person, or of restoring him to something which he may have lost by the perjury, he is not a competent witness. But, if he cannot be a gainer by the conviction, his having been a party to the suit in-which the perjury is charged to have been committed, and even his having been in danger of losing by the false oath, is not sufficient to exclude him as a witness.
In the present case, a conviction cannot effect the judgment before the J ustice, nor entitle Goodrich…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Aldis v. BurdickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Commonwealth v. JohnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1856