Legal Opinion

United States v. Elliot

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine

Decided May 15, 1823PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Indictment [against Jedediah Elliot] for taking a false oath under the pension act of 1st of May, 1820, c. 51 [3 Story’s Laws, 1778; 3 Stat. 569; c. 53]. Plea, not guilty. At the trial a verdict was found against the defendant. made two points of law on a motion in arrest of judgment: (1) That the act did not make the offence perjury in its technical sense, though it affixed to it the same punishment.

Read the full summary

Indictment [against Jedediah Elliot] for taking a false oath under the pension act of 1st of May, 1820, c. 51 [3 Story’s Laws, 1778; 3 Stat. 569; c. 53]. Plea, not guilty. At the trial a verdict was found against the defendant. made two points of law on a motion in arrest of judgment: (1) That the act did not make the offence perjury in its technical sense, though it affixed to it the same punishment. (2) That the indictment having concluded in the usual form of indictments for perjury, “And so the jurors &c. do say, that the defendant did falsely, &c. commit wilful and corrupt perjury,” the…

1Opinion of the Court

STORY-, Circuit Justice.

The pension act of 1820, c. 51, § 2 [3 Story’s Laws, 1778; 3 Stat. 569, c. 53], declares, that “any person, who shall swear or affirm falsely in the premises, and be thereof convicted, shall suffer as for wilful and corrupt perjury.” We incline to think, that the act does not make the offence a technical perjury, but only refers to it, for the purpose of affixing the *1003•same punishment. The other objection is more important. But we think that the conclusion does not vitiate the indictment, if the offence is in other respects fully and exactly described; for it is but an…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. AltwatterIdaho Supreme Court · 1916
  2. United States v. HoltzhauerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API