People v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 23 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21224.,21224.
• Citation: 180 N.E. 856,348 Ill. 322
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ROGERS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

348 Ill. 322

180 N.E. 856

PEOPLE

v.ROGERS.

No. 21224.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1932.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Peter H. Schwaba, Judge.

Wilfred A. Rogers was convicted of perjury, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

M. L. Callahan, of Chicago, and M. A. Brennan, of Bloomington (Arthur J. Goldberg, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

JONES, J.

In the criminal court of Cook county, Wilfred A. Rogers, plaintiff in error, was convicted of perjury. The indictment charges that, in a certain proceeding in the superior court of Cook county in which defendant sued his wife, Mary A. Rogers, for divorce, he falsely and knowingly testified that he lived at 14 West Erie street, in the city of Chicago; that he had given his wife no cause whatever to leave him; that he had not heard from her since she left him; that he did not know her whereabouts; and that they had no child or children. The indictment alleges the facts to be that he did not live on West Erie street, in Chicago, but lived at Minonk, in Woodford county; that he had given Mary A. Rogers cause to leave him and had heard from and seen her since she left him; that he knew her whereabouts and knew she lived in Peoria; and that he knew a son was born to him and his wife. The cause comes to this court by writ of error.

While plaintiff in error insists his testimony was true, he contends that, if it was false, as alleged, the superior court lacked jurisdiction of the person of Mary A. Rogers, and for that reason a charge of perjury cannot be predicated upon his testimony. It is essential to that crime that the tribunal before which the false swearing is alleged to have been committed shall have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the cause. Pankey v. People, 1 Scam. 80.Where a decree of divorce is granted upon false testimony concerning the residence of one of the parties, the decree is void as to such party, but the one giving the false testimony is nevertheless guilty of perjury. Markey v. State, 47 Fla. 38, 37 So. 53. If a court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of divorce, it has jurisdiction to hear testimony concerning allegations essential to the right to grant it. People v. McCaffrey, 75 Mich. 115, 42 N. W. 681;Laird v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 129, 184 S. W. 810, 3 A. L. R. 522. False testimony given on a record showing jurisdiction is none the less perjury because facts later appear to defeat jurisdiction. The superior court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the divorce suit, and, so far as plaintiff in error is concerned, he submitted himself and his cause to that jurisdiction. Hereford v. People, 197 Ill. 222, 64 N. E. 310. If the court did not have jurisdiction of the person of his wife, she may attack the decree anywhere, directly or collaterally. Dickey v. City of Chicago, 152 Ill. 468, 38 N. E. 932;Haywood v. Collins, 60 Ill. 328;Field v. Field, 215 Ill. 496, 74 N. E. 443. But he cannot attack it on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction (Fahnestock v. Gilham, 77 Ill. 637;Sullivan v. People, 224 Ill. 468, 79 N. E. 695), nor can be interpose such lack of jurisdiction as a defense in this case.

On the trial of the perjury case, Mary A. Rogers was permitted to testify concerning facts and circumstances which occurred during the existence of the marriage relation. When she was offered as a witness, plaintiff in error objected to her giving testimony relating to such matters. The objection was overruled and was not thereafter repeated, but an exception was preserved to the ruling. It was not necessary that the objection be repeated to each question asked of the witness. Taylor v. Pegram, 151 Ill. 106, 37 N. E. 837;People v. Schraeberg, 347 Ill. 392, 179 N. E. 829. She testified, in substance, that she was married to defendant on May 12, 1914, in Peoria, Ill.; that they had a son, who was born on May 19, 1916; that she resided with defendant in Minonk, Woodford county, Ill., during most of their married life and had never lived in Chicago; that after several temporary separations she finally separated from him on or about December 1, 1925, at which...