State v. Runyan

• Decision Date: 12 January 1892
• Docket Number: 16,078
• Parties: The State v. Runyan
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

29 N.E. 779

130 Ind. 208

The State v. Runyan

No. 16,078

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 12, 1892

From the Adams Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

A. G Smith, Attorney General, G. T. Whitaker, Prosecuting Attorney, and J. T. France, for the State.

OPINION

Elliott, C. J.

As we understand the argument of counsel representing the State they place their asserted right to a reversal of the judgment of the trial court quashing the information upon the sole ground that the information well charges the crime of perjury under the statute defining that crime. Section 2006, R. S. 1881. We also understand from their argument that the court below quashed the information upon the ground that a prosecution against one who makes a false and corrupt affidavit to a claim presented to a township trustee for sheep killed by dogs must be conducted under the statute providing for the presentation and payment of such claims, and defining the offence of one who falsely swears to such a claim. We further understand counsel to concede that, if the only statute under which the appellee can be prosecuted is the statute last named, and not the statute defining the crime of perjury, the information is insufficient. We have thus stated the position of counsel in order that it may be clearly seen that the question--and the only question--we are required to decide is this: Can a claimant for compensation for the value of sheep killed by dogs, who makes a false and corrupt affidavit to his claim, be prosecuted for perjury under the general statute, or must he be prosecuted under the particular statute which governs the subject of claims against the township trustee in such cases?

The township trustee is not a judicial officer, and he can not sit as a court or exercise the functions of a court. State, ex rel., v. Noble, 118 Ind. 350, 21 N.E. 244; Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445, 25 N.E. 551; Smythe v. Boswell, 117 Ind. 365, 20 N.E. 263, and cases cited; Shoultz v. McPheeters, 79 Ind. 373, and cases cited; Wilkins v. State, 113 Ind. 514, 16 N.E. 192; Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. 1, 19 N.E. 474, and cases cited.

There was, therefore, no evidence given in a court. There was simply and solely an affidavit made to a claim presented to the township trustee under the statute. That statute reads thus: "The owners of sheep killed or maimed by dogs shall, within ten days from the time thereof, report to the trustee of his township, under oath, in which he shall state the number, age (as he believes) and the value of the sheep so killed, and the...