State v. Sleeper
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment for perjury in two cases, involving tbe same questions, and heard together. The respondents filed general demurrers to the indictments. The indictments arc sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. At the January Term, 1863, the court. Peck, J., presiding, overruled the demurrers, and adjudged the indictments sufficient, — to which decision the respondents excepted.
Read the full summary
Indictment for perjury in two cases, involving tbe same questions, and heard together. The respondents filed general demurrers to the indictments. The indictments arc sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. At the January Term, 1863, the court. Peck, J., presiding, overruled the demurrers, and adjudged the indictments sufficient, — to which decision the respondents excepted. I. It does not appear by these indictments that the evidence given by the respondents, and upon which perjury is assigned, was given or taken to bo used in any judicial proceeding then pending. This is matter…
1Opinion of the CourtAldis, J.
These two cases were heard together at the last term, and stand upon the same ground.
They are indictments for perjury. To sustain the demurrer, the respondents claim, 1st, that the alleged perjury does not appear to have been committed in any judicial proceeding, and 2d, that it is not alleged and does not appear that the false evidence was material to the issue.
First — is it alleged with sufficient certainty that the false evidence was given in a judicial proceeding?
The indictment says that “ Eliza E. Carpenter, on the 25th June, 1860, brought a petition of divorce addressed to the supreme…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fitch v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1896
- State v. SteinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- State v. WakefieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- United States v. McHenryU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1869