Barnett v. State

Citation7 So. 414,89 Ala. 165
Decision Date09 April 1890
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

7 So. 414

89 Ala. 165


Supreme Court of Alabama

April 9, 1890

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Judge.

The defendant, Ben Barnett, was indicted, tried, and convicted for perjury. The indictment was in the following words: "The grand jury charge *** that Ben Barnett, on his examination as a witness before the grand jury of said county, at the February term, 1889, of the city court of Montgomery, duly sworn to testify by Tennent Lomax, solicitor for the county of Montgomery, who had authority to administer such oath, in a case before said grand jury of the state of Alabama against Berry Johnson, for the criminal offense of obtaining the signature of said Ben Barnett by false pretenses, falsely swore that said Berry Johnson obtained his (said Barnett's) signature to a certain bill of sale of two yearlings belonging to said Ben Barnett, by stating to said Barnett that he was signing as a witness to another bill of sale from some person, unknown to said grand jury, to said Berry Johnson, and that he knew nothing of having made a bill of sale of said yearlings to said Johnson; the matter so sworn to being material, and the testimony of said Ben Barnett in relation thereto being willfully and corruptly false, against the peace," etc.

The defendant demurred to this indictment on the following grounds: "(1) Because the indictment fails to state the substance of the proceedings with which the alleged false oath was connected. (2) Because said indictment shows that the testimony alleged to be false was given in a case before the grand jury where no offense was charged. (3) Because said indictment shows that the oath under which the alleged perjury was committed was an extrajudicial oath. (4) Because said indictment does not follow the form prescribed in the Code. (5) Because said indictment fails to show whether the alleged perjury was committed on a trial for a felony or on other proceedings." The court overruled these demurrers, and the defendant thereupon excepted.

On the trial of the case, the state introduced Tennent Lomax as a witness, and he testified that he was solicitor for Montgomery county; that at the February term, 1889, of the city court of Montgomery, he administered an oath to the defendant, as a witness, in a case then being investigated before said grand jury against Berry Johnson, for obtaining the signature of said defendant to a bill of sale by false pretenses. The defendant objected to the introduction of this testimony, on the ground that it was shown that the bill of sale was not produced, or its absence accounted for, before the grand jury, at the time the defendant was examined before said grand jury. The court overruled the objection of the defendant to the introduction of this testimony, and the defendant thereupon excepted. On further examination, the said witness Lomax testified substantially to the facts as alleged in the indictment. The defendant moved to exclude all the testimony of this witness, on the ground that it was not shown that the grand jury had jurisdiction to inquire into said offense. The court overruled his motion, and defendant excepted. The defendant objected, and reserved an exception to the question asked the witness, as shown by the opinion. The defendant undertook to justify his testimony before the grand jury on the advice of counsel, offering to prove that after his attorney had heard the testimony in reference to obtaining his signature to said bill of sale, as produced on a trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Hill v. State, 8 Div. 947
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 18, 1978
    ...act . . . . The giving of such assurance or advice neither increases nor diminishes criminality in any degree . . . ." Barnett v. State, 89 Ala. 165, 7 So. 414 (1890); Reed v. State, 248 Ala. 196, 27 So.2d 25 (1946). Officer Hammonds had no power by his bare assertion to create such a right......
  • Lessley v. State, 6 Div. 990.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1922
    ...payment of the depositor's money, the check or order is the subject of forgery. Bickley v. Keenan & Co., 60 Ala. 293; Barnett v. State, 89 Ala. 165-171, 7 So. 414; Jackson v. Tribble, 156 Ala. 480, 47 So. 310. If it is such an instrument as is required by the statute to be signed, upon its ......
  • Thomas v. State, 356
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1915
    ...Ala. 35, 14 So. 98; Maddox v. State, 2 Ala.App. 244, 57 So. 95; Johnson v. State, 3 Ala.App. 98, 57 So. 389; Barnett v. State, 89 Ala. 169, 7 So. 414; Hicks v. State, 86 Ala. 30, 5 So. 425; Walker v. State, 96 Ala. 53, 11 So. 401. Count 4 of the indictment here was slightly more particular ......
  • Loudermilk v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 22, 1913
    ...fails to charge by what court or before whom the oath or affirmation was administered. Kirby's Dig., § 1970; 30 Cyc. 1425; 54 Ark. 585; 89 Ala. 165; 24 Ark. 591. 2. It fails to charge that the justice of the peace had authority to administer the oath under which the false testimony is charg......
  • 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