State v. Huckeby
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 87 Mo. 414 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Plaintiff in Error, v. HUCKEBY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Scott Circuit Court.--HON. J. D. FOSTER, Judge.
REVERSED.
B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.
The indictment in this case is drawn upon section 1418, Revised Statutes, and follows the requirements of section 1424, Revised Statutes. It clearly sets forth the substance of the offence charged, names the cause in which the alleged perjury was committed, the court in which the same was being tried, states the materiality of the issue so that the court can determine it, sets out the particular facts alleged to have been sworn to, negatives their truth, and properly assigns perjury upon them. This is all that is required. State v. Cave, 81 Mo. 450,and cases cited; Bish. Crim. Pr. (3 Ed.) sec. 911; Donohoe v. State, 14 Tex. App. 648. The English statutes in regard to perjury (14 and 15 Vic., chap. 100, sec. 20), are substantially the same as ours, section 1424, Revised Statutes. The indictment in the case at bar would be good under the English statute after striking out repetitions and immaterial matters, alleged with needless particularity. These may be treated as surplusage and the indictment will still be good under our statute. State v. Cave, supra; 2 Arch. Cr. Pr. & Pl. (8 Ed.), note 1 commencing on page 1719; State v. Langley, 34 N. H. 529; State v. Newton, 1 Green (Iowa) 160; State v. Varrell, 58 N. H. 158. This court has held an indictment for perjury sufficient which did not charge the offence with the precision and particularity used in this case. State v. Belew, 79 Mo. 584.
No brief for defendant in error.
This case is before us on a writ of error prosecuted by the state from the judgment of the Scott county circuit court, quashing an indictment charging defendant with the crime of perjury. The indictment is as follows:
| “STATE OF MISSOURI, |
| ) |
| ) |
| SS. |
| COUNTY OF SCOTT. |
)
In the circuit court of Scott county, Missouri, April term, 1883:
The grand jurors for the state of Missouri, duly empaneled, sworn and charged to inqure within and for the county of Scott aforesaid, upon their oath, present that, heretofore, at one of the justice of the peace courts of Richland township, in said county and state, on the eleventh day of January, 1883, before William Boutwell, Esquire, one of the justices of the peace of said township, in said county and state, a certain issue between one James Marshall and one John D. Ebert, in a certain action to recover money had, received and paid out, by mistake or oppression, wherein the said James Marshall was plaintiff, and the said John D. Ebert was defendant, came on to be tried in due form of law, the said court then and there having competent authority in that behalf, and the said issue was then and there tried by the said justice of the peace, sitting as a court as aforesaid in that behalf, upon which said trial one William R. Huckeby then and there appeared as a witness for, and in behalf of, the said John D. Ebert, the said defendant in the action aforesaid, and was then and there duly sworn, and took his oath before the said court, which said oath was then and there administered by the said William Boutwell, Esquire, justice of the peace as aforesaid, then and there sitting as a court as aforesaid, then and there having full power and competent authority to administer the said oath to the said William R. Huckeby in that behalf, that the evidence which he, the said William R. Huckeby should give to the court then and there aforesaid, should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth, and that, upon the trial of the issue so joined between the parties aforesaid, it then and there became, and was, a material question whether the said James Marshall had bought of the said John D. Ebert, at his store in the town of Sikeston, in said county and state, on the twentieth day of January, 1882, certain goads, wares and merchandise, amounting in price and value to $4.90, itemized as follows: Calico of the price and value of one dollar; one pair of shoes for ninety cents; one pair of shoes for seventy-five cents; eight yards of prints for one dollar and sixty cents, and checks for sixty-five cents. And that the said William R. Huckeby then and there, on the trial of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Tedder
...Campbell, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent. (1) The indictment is sufficient. State v. Walker, 194 Mo. 367; State v. Huckeby, 87 Mo. 414; State Nelson, 146 Mo. 256; State v. Cave, 81 Mo. 450; State v. Miller, 44 Mo.App. 159; State v. Breitweiser, 88 Mo.App. 648; State v. P......
-
State v. Biedermann
...9, 119 S.W. 391; State v. Owens, 73 Mo. 440; State v. Ruddy, 287 Mo. 52, 228 S.W. 760; State v. Pedder, 294 Mo. 290, 242 S.W. 889; State v. Huckeby, 87 Mo. 414; State Cave, 81 Mo. 450; State v. Shank, 66 Mo. 560; State v. Keel, 54 Mo. 187. OPINION Tipton, J. The respondent was indicted for ......
-
Haseltine v. Ausherman
... ... the appellant had promised not to require respondent to pay rent that year, and that respondent when he went to Kansas left property in this state. R. S., sec. 3091; Kluen v. Vineyard, 38 Mo. 447. The evidence must correspond with the allegations, and be confined to the point in issue. State, ... ...
-
The State v. Gordon
...and informations and indictments similar to it have been approved. R. S. 1899, secs. 2033 and 2039; State v. Cave, 81 Mo. 450; State v. Huckeby, 87 Mo. 414. It was proper to name in one count all of the statements with which defendant was charged, especially as all of said statements relate......