State v. Dow
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment for perjury. Heard on respondent’s demurrer, at the September Term, 1901, Washington County, Munson, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled and indictment adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted. The indictment does not allege that the law requires the proof to be under oath. This omission is fatal. State v. Rowell, 70 Vt. 405; State v. Bstabrooks, 70 Vt. 412; 16 Ency. PI. & P'r.. 323-4. The oath set out in the indictment is an idle performance.
Read the full summary
Indictment for perjury. Heard on respondent’s demurrer, at the September Term, 1901, Washington County, Munson, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled and indictment adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted. The indictment does not allege that the law requires the proof to be under oath. This omission is fatal. State v. Rowell, 70 Vt. 405; State v. Bstabrooks, 70 Vt. 412; 16 Ency. PI. & P'r.. 323-4. The oath set out in the indictment is an idle performance. A notary public has no authority to administer it. 2 Whart. Crim. Law, §§'1256-7, 1269; Rambert v. People, 76 N. Y. 220. Perjury can be…
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
The respondent is indicted for perjury-under Laws of 1900, No. 64, in knowingly swearing to a false statement made in a proof of loss to a fire insurance company, with intent to defraud. The case is here on demurrer to the indictment, which contains two1 counts.
This act contemplates that at the time the loss occurred there was an insurance policy under which the proof of loss containing the false statement sworn to is being made. Without such policy there can be no crime.
Neither count contains any averment of that fact; nor does either count contain an averment that the proof of loss sworn to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. RowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898
- State v. EstabrooksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898