United States v. Ambrose

Decision Date23 April 1883
Citation2 S.Ct. 682,108 U.S. 336,27 L.Ed. 746
PartiesUNITED STATES v. AMBROSE. *
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for the United States.

Geo. Hoadly, E. M. Johnson, and Edward Colston, for Ambrose.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 337-338 intentionally omitted]

MILLER, J.

This c

ase comes before us on a certificate of division of opinion between the judges holding the circuit court for the southern district of Ohio.

The defendant, who was clerk of the circuit and district courts for that district, was indicted for perjury in swearing before the district judge to his emolument returns and an account for services rendered for the United States. The indictment consists of four counts, framed under section 5392 of the Revised Statutes, namely:

'Every person who, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $2,000, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than five years; and shall, moreover, thereafter be incapable of giving testimony in any court of the United States until such time as the judgment against him is reversed.'

In the first three counts of the indictment, after setting out the emolument returns, and their verification by oath of the defendant, the falsity of the counts, and the corrupt perjury of the defendant in swearing to them, each count closes with this language:

'And so the grand jurors aforesaid, on their oaths and affirmations aforesaid, present that he, the said Thomas Ambrose, having taken the said oath, before the said officer who was competent to administer the same, that said written declaration by him so subscribed as aforesaid was true, willfully and contrary to said oath did then and there unlawfully subscribe said matters heretofore set forth, which were material and which he did not believe to be true, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America.'

A demurrer was filed to the whole indictment, on the ground, relied on here also, that the paper, to the truth of which defendant swears as it is set forth in the indictment, is neither a declaration, as it is charged to be in the first three counts, nor a certificate, as charged in the last, within the meaning of those words in section 5392. And in regard to this question, as it applies to each count, the judges of the court have sent us the following certificate:

(Circuit Court of the United States, Southern District of Ohio.)

(1472) UNITED STATES v. THOMAS AMBROSE.

Indictment.

'This cause coming on to be heard before the Hon. NOAH H. SWAYNE and Hon, JOHN BAXTER, judges of said court, sitting therein upon the demurrer of defendant to the indictment, certain questions thereupon occurred on said hearing to be decided by the court, to-wit:

'First. Whether the instrument set forth in the first count of indictment, and alleged therein to have been subscribed and sworn to by the defendant, was a written declaration within the meaning of section 5392 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

'Second. Whether the instrument set forth in the second count of the indictment, and alleged therein to have been subscribed and sworn to by the defendant, was a written declaration within the meaning of section 5392 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

'Third. Whether the instrument set forth in the third count of indictment, and alleged therein to have been subscribed and sworn to by the defendant, was a written declaration within the meaning of section 5392 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

'Fourth. Whether the instrument set forth in the fourth count of the indictment, and alleged therein to have been subscribed and sworn to by the defendant, was a written...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Abrams v. Jones
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1922
    ... ... deemed insufficient where it merely states conclusions ... 5 ... Held, that the charges brought against respondent as a ... liberally construed." ( Boyd v. United States, ... 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 27 L.Ed. 746.) ... Though ... a board may hold ... ...
  • Union Nat Bank of Chicago v. Bank of Kansas City
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1890
    ...circuit court. Rev. St. §§ 650, 652, 693; Act Feb. 16, 1875, c. 77, § 3, (18 St. 316;) Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158; U. S. v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 682; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 193. The determination of these questions is governed by the law of Mi......
  • Robert Earl Wash. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • June 16, 2011
    ...13 of the Revised Statutes allowed for prosecution after a statute's repeal for violations occurring prior to repeal); United States v. Ambrose, 108 U.S. 336 (1883) (answering certified questions related to a clerk's perjury in the affirmative); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877) (holding......
  • Smiley v. Lenane
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1936
    ...or for such relief as the circumstances demand.’ Among the authorities cited in support of such definition is United States v. Ambrose, 108 U.S. 336, 2 S.Ct. 682, 27 L.Ed. 746. Tested by this definition, the pleading filed is not a bill in chancery but is clearly a petition filed under the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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