State v. Mooney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal ■from Andrew Circuit Court—IIon. H. S. Nelly, Judge. Where a party has sworn contrary ways at different times, it must be expressly ehax’ged and shown in such case which was the false oath and on which occasion he swore willfully, falsely and corruptly. Wharton’s Pree.
Read the full summary
Appeal ■from Andrew Circuit Court—IIon. H. S. Nelly, Judge. Where a party has sworn contrary ways at different times, it must be expressly ehax’ged and shown in such case which was the false oath and on which occasion he swore willfully, falsely and corruptly. Wharton’s Pree. (Perjury) 577, 578, 926. It is not necessary to constitute the crime of perjury that the evidence given should be material to the matter before the court; it is sufficient if it be material to any collateral matter or inquiry. State v. Lavalley, 9 Mo. 824.
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
We think the indictment good, both in form and substance, and that it is distinctly alleged therein, that the perjury was committed on the trial of the cause between the parties, in the Justices’ Court on the 29th day of August, 1873.
1. peiuoty: Maiietíugtesttaony on different trials,
Whether or not the item of thirteen and one half bushels of wheat was embraced in the account which was ^ie foundation of the suit tried on the 9th August, 1873, between defendant and jjgnry 0. Wright, is of no consequence, for if he testified in a suit in which it was immaterial that he did not owe the wheat,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Weil v. TylerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. FaulknerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Lafayette County Bank v. MetcalfMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Leiter v. EmmonsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
- Cordova Coal Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.