Hinch v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1829 |
| Citation | 2 Mo. 158 |
| Parties | HINCH v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR FROM HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT.
Hinch was convicted of perjury at the last term of the Howard Circuit Court, sentenced to receive twenty-five stripes, fined fifty dollars, and disqualified from being a witness, &c., agreeably to the provisions of the 56th section of the act concerning crimes and punishment: R. C. p. 299. Various errors are assigned, only two of which will be now considered, withont regard to the order in which they stand.
First. That the indictment does not show what species of larceny was charged against Patrick, upon the trial for which the perjury is alleged to have been committed by Hinch; or that the same was a felony, either at common law or by the statute.
Second. That it is not sufficiently alleged in the indictment against Hinch, that the facts sworn to, and in which the perjury is charged to have been committed, were material upon the trial between the State and Patrick.
The indictment charges that the perjury was committed upon the trial of issues joined between the State of Missouri and one William Patrick, upon an indictment against said Patrick “for larceny, and for feloniously marking a hog, and feloniously altering the marks of hogs, with an intention of stealing the same,” &c. “And that at and upon the trial of said issues, one Uriah Hinch did then and there, to-wit: on the day and year aforesaid, at the county aforesaid, at the court aforesaid, appear, and was produced as a witness for and on behalf of the said Patrick, against the said State of Missouri; and the said Hinch was then and there duly sworn, and did then and there take his corporal oath, as such witness as aforesaid, before the said court, that the evidence that he, the said Uriah, should give to the court and jury, sworn between the said State and the said William Patrick, should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (the said court then and there having competent authority to administer the said oath to the said Uriah in that behalf) and the said Uriah being so sworn as aforesaid, it then and there became and was material to inquire,” &c. The statute above referred to, R. C. p. 299, § 56, provides “that if any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, &c., on any trial for felony,” &c., he shall be punished in the manner Hinch has been sentenced to be punished in this case.
In this case the indictment charges that Patrick was on his trial for larceny, &c., and it is insisted that all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brinkley
...whether done with a pistol, fists, blackjack or so on. Perjury may not be assigned upon immaterial details of testimony. Hinch v. State, supra; v. Bailey, supra. (24) The information omitted innuendoes necessary to explain the meaning of the spoken words upon which perjury was assigned. Wha......
-
The State v. Jennings
...car. "Swearing falsely to a matter incidental, but utterly immaterial, to the issue, does not constitute the crime of perjury." Hinch v. State, 2 Mo. 158; Martin Miller, 4 Mo. 47; State v. Bailey, 34 Mo. 350; State v. Wakefield, 9 Mo.App. 326. (2) The court erred in overruling defendant's p......
-
Harris v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company
...before any court . . . shall be deemed guilty of perjury." False testimony as to an immaterial or improper matter is not perjury. (Hinch v. State, 2 Mo. 158; State Shanks, 66 Mo. 560.) But if the false testimony be material to any proper matter of inquiry in the case it will be deemed perju......
- The State v. Martin