State v. Cannon
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Citation | 79 Mo. 343 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. CANNON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court.--HON. D. L. HAWKINS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
Wilson Cramer for respondent.
The defendant was indicted at the May term of the circuit court for Cape Girardeau county, for perjury, for making false affidavit to his property list for assessment.
As the indictment was quashed for insufficiency, it is necessary to present such portions of it as bear upon the questions to be decided. It charges, in substance, that the assessment was made for the year beginning August 1st, 1878, “that in the execution and performance of his (the assessor's) said duty as such assessor, the said Henry L. Caldwell (the assessor) on the 12th day of March, 1879, called at the office and place of business of” defendant, and alleges that the said affidavit was then and there administered to him by the said assessor. The indictment proceeds to set out, with detail, the facts showing wherein the affidavit was false, but it does not charge that the assessor gave the notice to the board of equalization, or that any steps were taken, or proceedings had before said board to ascertain whether the defendant was guilty of the false omission, as pointed out by section 34 of the Revenue Act. 2 Wag. Stat., p. 1165. Otherwise the indictment sufficiently charges the offense of perjury under section.
The objections made to the indictment are, that it does not sufficiently charge the offense of perjury under section 1, page 476, Wagner's Statutes; nor is the same good as a misdemeanor, under section 4, page 476, Wagner's Statutes, and if it were, it is manifest on its face that the offense is barred by the statute of limitation. It is also objected that the indictment is bad because it does not set out that any proceeding was first had before the board of equalization, and that this board found the defendant was guilty, and made the order for the treble assessment against him as provided in said section 34; and because it appears that at the time the assessor is alleged to have made the assessment and administered the affidavit he was not authorized under the statute to administer such oath. The circuit court sustained the objections and quashed the indictment. The State has brought the case here by appeal.
It is too plain for argument that the indictment does not sufficiently charge the offense of perjury under the general criminal statute; because it does not allege that the matter sworn to was material to any issue or inquiry in contemplation of that statute. It is not good as an indictment for a misdemeanor, for if it were otherwise well framed it is manifest on the face of the bill that it is barred by the statute of limitation applicable to such offense. It must be sustained, if at all, on the 34th section of the Revenue Law above referred to, which is as follows: “If any person shall, with intent to defraud, deliver to any assessor a false list of property, it shall be the duty of the assessor to give notice in writing thereof to the said county board of equalization; and the said board shall, on receiving such notice, give notice thereof to the person who shall have furnished such false list * * and shall fix a time for the hearing of such matter, and if it appear that such person is not guilty as charged, the said board shall dismiss the matter, but if it appear that such person is guilty as charged, it shall be the duty of such board of equalization to ascertain the true amount and value of all property of such person subject to taxation, and to tax the same, * * and in addition shall, by way of penalty for furnishing such false list, treble the amount of taxes thus ascertained against such person; and such person shall be required to pay such treble amount, and shall in addition thereto be liable to be punished for perjury.”
We do not think the objection well taken that before an indictment can be sustained under this section it must appear that the matter had been brought by the assessor before the board of equalization, and that it had, on investigation, found the tax-payer guilty, as therein provided. That part of the statute has reference necessarily to the civil method of ascertaining the delinquency of the person with a view to fixing upon him the treble liability. It is manifest that the legislature, in adopting this section, designed to present to the tax-payers the strongest argument that could spring from a sense of fear, by subjecting the delinquent falsifier to heavy pecuniary liability and to the pains and penalties of perjury. The words, “and shall in addition thereto be liable to be punished for perjury,” create the offense of perjury out of this violation of duty of citizenship to pay taxes on his property. There could, in the nature of criminal proceedings, be no necessary connection between the action or non-action of the board of equalization and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Richardson
...and that as to the materiality of his testimony in the assault case. State v. Moran, 216 Mo. 550; State v. Williams, 30 Mo. 364; State v. Cannon, 79 Mo. 343; State Carpenter, 164 Mo. 588. WILLIAMS, C. Roy, C., not sitting. OPINION WILLIAMS, C. -- On November 9, 1911, defendant was tried and......
-
The State ex rel. Ward v. Atchison
...a false assessment list, with intent to defraud, is a civil liability. The penal part of the statute is enforcible by indictment. State v. Cannon, 79 Mo. 346; ex rel. v. Moss, 69 Mo. 499. If the right to enforce the provisions of section 9150, survived the death of John Ward, then the board......
- Blakely v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.