Commonwealth v. Brady
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for perjury by falsely, maliciously and wilfully testifying, at the trial of William P. Hood on a complaint for maliciously burning a ship on the stocks, that, soon after the ship was on fire, Brady saw a person come out of the ship and run away, who, to the best of his opinion, was said Hood.
Read the full summary
Indictment for perjury by falsely, maliciously and wilfully testifying, at the trial of William P. Hood on a complaint for maliciously burning a ship on the stocks, that, soon after the ship was on fire, Brady saw a person come out of the ship and run away, who, to the best of his opinion, was said Hood. Trial in the court of common pleas before Sanger, J., who signed a bill of exceptions, one point in which was thus stated : “ From the evidence in the case, the defendant’s counsel argued to the jury that the testimony showed that at the time and place and under the circumstances testified to…
1Opinion of the CourtDewey, J.
To constitute perjury, there must be a wilful false oath, and, as is usually stated in the elementary books, the party must swear absolutely in a matter material to the point in question.
In the present case, the party testifying swore positively to the fact of seeing some one come out of the ship, after the ship was on fire; but who that person was is stated in no stronger language than that, “ to the best of the opinion of the witness,” it was William P. Hood. In regard to the latter statement of the witness, we think the rule stated by the presiding judge at the trial was not sufficiently…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Pilgrim v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
- Mathes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1919
- Case v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1877
- Commonwealth v. ShieldsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912