State v. Camlet

• Decision Date: 29 January 1895
• Citation: 31 A. 840,67 Vt. 322
• Parties: STATE v. CAMLET.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

31 A. 840

67 Vt. 322

STATE

v. CAMLET.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Jan. 29, 1895.

Exceptions from Washington county court; Tyler, Judge.

Edwin J. Camley was convicted of perjury, and excepts. Exceptions overruled.

The indictment was as follows: "Be it remembered, that at a county court begun and holden at Montpelier, within and for the county of Washington, on the second Tuesday of September, in the year of our Lord 1893, the grand jurors within and for the body of the county of Washington aforesaid, now here in court duly impaneled and sworn, upon their oath present that Edwin J. Camley, otherwise called Ed. Camley, of Duxbury, in the county of Washington, aforesaid, on the 18th day of October, in the year of our Lord 1892, appeared and testified as a witness in a prosecution in which the state of Vermont and W. Henry Pixley were parties, the said prosecution then and there being heard and tried before the county court within and for the county of Washington, aforesaid, at a term thereof begun and held at Montpelier, aforesaid, on the second Tuesday of September, in the year of our Lord 1892, the said county court then and there being a tribunal of competent jurisdiction; and that the said Edwin J. Camley, otherwise called Ed. Camley, then and there before said county court being sworn to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, relative to the said prosecution then and there being tried, then and there committed the crime of perjury, and then and there falsely testified in answer to interrogatories substantially as follows: 'Question. Whereabouts do you live, and did you live last April? Answer. In Stowe. Q. With your brother Will Camley? A. Yes, sir.' [Here is set forth in the form of questions and answers the stenographic transcript of the testimony.] Which said testimony was material to the issue then and there pending in said prosecution; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

Geo. W. Wing and W. A. Lord, for respondent.

Zed S. Stanton, State's Atty., for the State.

START, J. This cause comes to this court on exceptions taken by the respondent to the overruling of his demurrer to the indictment, and to the admission of certain evidence: The indictment is drawn in compliance with No. 29 of the Acts of 1890, entitled "An act to simplify indictments for perjury," and is sufficient, provided the respondent is informed with reasonable certainty of the cause and nature of the accusation against him. By the indictment the respondent is informed that on the 18th day of October, 1892, he appeared as a witness in a proceeding in which the state of Vermont and W. Henry Pixley were parties, then and there being heard before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction; that he then and there committed the crime of perjury by testifying, in answer to interrogatories, in substance as is set forth in the indictment; and that his testimony was material to the...