"At the fall term of the district court of Karnes county an indictment was presented against F.A. Schoenfeld, charging him with the offense of perjury. At the spring term of the court the appellant, F. A. Schoenfeld, presented to the court a motion to quash the indictment, which was overruled, and to which ruling appellant excepted. The indictment assigns the alleged perjury upon the testimony given by appellant in a civil suit in the county court of Karnes county, in which suit appellant, F. A. Schoenfeld, was plaintiff and Karnes City Independent School Corporation was defendant. After setting out the pendency of the suit, jurisdiction of the court, and that appellant was sworn, etc., the indictment charges: `Whereupon it then and there became and was a material inquiry * * * whether there had been an understanding and agreement by and between said F. A. Schoenfeld and said Karnes City Independent School Corporation * * * at the time and before the execution of a certain written contract to the effect that said F. A. Schoenfeld bound and obligated himself to place in each window of a certain addition to the public school building then located in Karnes City, Tex., for the erection of which said addition said written contract was made, inside blinds which should slide up and down in grooves, similar to the blinds on the windows of the aforesaid public school building then located and in use in said Karnes City, Tex., and to which public school building said addition was to be made; and the said F. A. Schoenfeld did then and there * * * willfully and deliberately state and testify in substance that there had not been any understanding or agreement by or between said F. A. Schoenfeld and said Karnes City Independent School Corporation, or the authorized representatives thereof, at the time or before the execution of a certain written contract to the effect that said F. A. Schoenfeld bound and obligated himself to place in each window of a certain addition to the public school building then located in said Karnes City, Tex., for the erection of which said addition said written contract was made, inside blinds which should slide up and down in grooves, similar to the blinds on the windows of the aforesaid public school building then located and in use in said Karnes City, Tex., and to which public school building said addition was to be made, and which said statement was material to the issue in said cause; whereas, in truth and in fact there had been an understanding and agreement by and between said F. A. Schoenfeld
and said Karnes City Independent School Corporation and the authorized representatives thereof, at the time and before the execution of a certain written contract to the effect that said F. A. Schoenfeld bound and obligated himself to place in each window of a certain addition to the public school building then located in said Karnes City, Tex., for the erection of which said addition said written contract was made, inside blinds which should slide up and down in grooves, similar to the blinds on the windows of the aforesaid public school building then located and in use in said Karnes City, Tex., and to which public school building said addition was to be made; which said statement * * * was willfully and deliberately false, and said F. A. Schoenfeld knew the same to be false when he made it.' Upon a trial had at the fall term, 1908, there was a verdict of guilty, fixing the punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for the period of two years. A motion for a new trial was presented and overruled, and the case appealed to this court.
"In May, 1907, there was pending in the county court of Karnes county a civil suit, in which F. A. Schoenfeld was plaintiff and Karnes City Independent School Corporation was defendant. The case was tried on May 24, 1907, said court having jurisdiction of the case. F. A. Schoenfeld was legally sworn as a witness, and testified upon the trial. On June 12, 1906, the parties had entered into a written contract by which the appellant, F. A. Schoenfeld, was to `provide all material and perform all work mentioned in the specifications and as shown on the drawings for a three-room addition to the public school building of the town of Karnes City, Tex., * * * which said drawings and specifications have been heretofore agreed upon and identified by the signatures of the parties.' The contract by article 3 recited: `No alterations shall be made in the work shown or described by the drawings and specifications except upon a written order of the president of the board of trustees.' On the question of blinds for the addition the original typewritten specification was as follows: `Victoria Venetian blinds. Place and hang on all windows inside. Venetian blinds with rolling slats. Put on attachment and fasteners to leave the blinds in good working order.' The above specification was scratched out by running over it a lead pencil, and in its place was written in lead pencil the words `All windows to have Venetian blinds.' Prior to the signing up by the parties, appellant and the members of the board of trustees met in the office of the county judge in the courthouse at Karnes City, and we will let the different witnesses show what occurred:
"C. H. Baxter, a trustee, after naming different trustees, testified: `We met in the county judge's office in this building on Saturday. We did not complete the details, and we were to meet Monday at Dr. Pickett's residence to complete the contract. In county judge's office we discussed specifications, and alterations were made. When we got to the blinds it was read off, "Victoria Venetian blinds." * * * Some one asked Mr. Schoenfeld what kind of blinds those were, and he pointed to the blinds in Judge Parker's office, and said, "They are like them." Some member of the board said: "We don't want them. We want blinds that fit inside of the windows in sections and that move up and down." We did not know the name of the blinds at all. We told him we wanted blinds that move up and down in grooves, and they were to be in three sections. Schoenfeld said he understood the kind we wanted, and he erased the original specification, and made an alteration which was to cover the blind we wanted. The alteration is: "All windows to have Venetian blinds."' J.P. Rhodes testified he was a member of board of school trustees, and was present at discussion of specifications in Judge Parker's office, and when the blinds were discussed. `When we came to Victoria Venetian blinds, we did not know what they were, and we told Schoenfeld we wanted blinds like those in the old schoolhouse, and then Schoenfeld checked that "Victoria Venetian blinds" out, and wrote it "Venetian blinds." He wrote into the specifications: "All windows to have Venetian blinds." Schonfeld said the blinds we wanted were Venetian blinds. We told him we wanted blinds that run up and down in a frame like those in the old schoolhouse. There was no more said on that subject.' Mr. Lou Bailey, one of the trustees, testified he was present at conversation between Schoenfeld and board of trustees at Judge Parker's office. `When Schoenfeld called Victoria Venetian blinds, he said something about their being like those on the courthouse, and Dr. Pickett stopped him and told him it was not the kind we wanted, that we wanted blinds like those in the school building; and Schoenfeld said, "All right," and erased that "Victoria" and just left it "Venetian blind." He made no objection at all; just said, "All right, gentlemen," or something like that, and put it down.' Dr. King, superintendent of board of trustees, testified: `Schoenfeld explained that Victoria Venetian blinds was the kind then in the courthouse. This was in office of county judge. The board all objected to that kind of blinds, and explained what we wanted. We told him we wanted blinds in sections that slide up and down in grooves, like the ones in the old building. Schoenfeld then erased the typewritten specification, and wrote in: "All windows to have Venetian blinds."' Dr. W. S. Pickett testified he was president of the board of trustees on May 24, 1909. Prior to execution of contract was present at a conference in Judge Parker's office between the board and Schoenfeld. `When we reached the specification relative to Victoria Venetian blinds, some member
asked Schoenfeld what kind of blinds they were, and he pointed to the blinds in Judge Parker's office, and said they were Victoria Venetian blinds (slats fastened together with tape and raised and lowered by a string). I stopped him and said: "We don't want that. We want the same blinds that we have in the old building, which sets in a frame, in three sections, and works in grooves, each blind separately. You can let it down from top, bottom or middle." I explained that we did not want Victoria Venetian blinds, that it was not a...
