State v. See

• Citation: 4 Wash. 344,30 P. 327
• Parties: STATE v. SEE. [1]
• Decision Date: 01 June 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

30 P. 327

4 Wash. 344

STATE v. SEE. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

June 1, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Kittitas county; CARROLL B. GRAVES Judge.

Indictment of John See for perjury. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer thereto the state of Washington appeals. Affirmed.

D H. McFalls, Pros. Atty., for the State.

DUNBAR J.

The indictment in this case was as follows: "The said John See, on the twelfth day of November, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, in the county of Kittitas and state of Washington, then and there before his honor, CARROLL B GRAVES, judge of the superior court of the state of Washington for the county of Kittitas, holding court on said day in the courthouse at Ellensburgh, upon a proceeding wherein the state of Washington was plaintiff and John See was defendant, why said John See should not be punished for contempt of said court in disobeying a subp na served upon him, the said John See, commanding him to be present and testify in a case wherein the state of Washington was plaintiff and one W. T. Harris was defendant, and at which said last-mentioned trial said John See failed to attend and to so testify; and thereupon before said court, at said time as aforesaid, said John See, having taken an oath administered by Will G. Graves, deputy county clerk, and ex officio deputy clerk of said superior court, and who then and there had authority to administer such oath, did then and there willfully, corruptly, falsely, and feloniously depose, swear, and testify," etc., with the ordinary allegations of the falsity of the matters and things sworn to. A general demurrer was interposed to this indictment that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the law. The demurrer was sustained by the court, and the state, standing on the indictment, appeals to this court. We agree entirely with the argument of the prosecuting attorney, that the technical rules of the common law relating to criminal practice do not have any force in this state, and that the sufficiency of an indictment or information is to be determined by the rules prescribed in the act regulating criminal procedure; and are willing to concede that if the indictment, upon a fair reading, stands this test, it is sufficient, though not good at common law. But, subjecting this indictment to the test proposed, we think it fails. One of the requirements of the Code ^[1] is a statement of ...