Commonwealth v. Pickering

Decision Date15 December 1851
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. PICKERING.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

An indictment for perjury must shew that the evidence which the defendant gave was material. And therefore if the evidence which the defendant gave before the grand jury is not shewn clearly on the face of the indictment to relate to an offence committed within the county, the indictment is defective.

This was an indictment for perjury in the Circuit court of Wirt county against Nelson A. Pickering. The defendant demurred to the indictment, and the Circuit court with his consent adjourned to this Court eight questions. Of these the sixth was, Does the materiality of the defendant's evidence given before the grand jury sufficiently appear in the indictment?

And the eighth was, What judgment ought to be rendered in this case upon the demurrer to the indictment?

The indictment is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Fisher, for the defendant.

OPINION

LEIGH J.

The defendant was indicted in the Circuit court of Wirt for perjury in giving evidence to the grand jury empanneled in that Court. The defendant demurred to the indictment, and upon the argument of the demurrer, the Court adjourned eight questions to this Court.

The indictment alleges that on the day of 1850, a grand jury was summoned and empanneled for the county of Wirt, and whilst they were examining and investigating the violations of the laws of the Commonwealth committed within the county, the defendant appeared in open Court, and at his own instance was sworn by the Court that the evidence he should give to the grand jury should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the Court having then and there competent authority to administer the said oath; and that whilst the defendant was being examined by the grand jury it then and there became material to enquire whether Alfred Fought Esq. (a justice of the peace for the Commonwealth of Virginia in and for the county of Wirt,) was present and was called upon to suppress a fight between the defendant and one John Hickman; and the defendant being sworn as aforesaid, did then and there in the said county before the grand jury, falsely wilfully and corruptly depose, swear and testify that Alfred Fought Esq., (a Commonwealth's justice of peace for the county aforesaid,) was present and was called to suppress a fight between the defendant and John Hickman, and that Fought did then and there refuse to assist in quelling the said fight: Whereas the said Alfred Fought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 25, 1914
    ...1 Mich. 137 ; State v. Hobbs, 40 N. H. 229; State v. Beard, 25 N. J. Law, 384; State v. Hayward, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 546; Pickering's Case, 49 Va. 628; State v. Davis, 69 N. C. 495; Wood v. People, 59 N. Y. 117; Nelson v. State, 47 Miss. 621; State v. Bowlus, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 29. The exce......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT