State v. Turley

• Decision Date: 27 October 1899
• Citation: 153 Ind. 345,55 N.E. 30
• Parties: STATE v. TURLEY.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

153 Ind. 345

55 N.E. 30

STATE

v.TURLEY.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 27, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county.

Indictment against Henry Turley for perjury. Motion to quash being sustained, the state appeals. Reversed.

James A. Zaring, Pros. Atty., and W. L. Taylor, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MONKS, J.

The indictment charges the appellee with the crime of perjury, under section 2093, Burns' Rev. St. 1894 (section 2006, Rev. St. 1881; section 2006, Horner's Rev. St. 1897). Appellee's motion to quash was sustained, and the state appeals.

It appears from the indictment that appellee was a contractor for the construction of certain gravel roads in Lawrence county, in this state, and that one William Duncan was, by appointment, engineer thereof, and that the grand jury were investigating charges of bribery against appellee and against said Duncan, as engineer of said gravel roads; that said appellee appeared before said grand jury, and, after being duly sworn by the foreman as a witness, he did then and there, while testifying as such witness, feloniously, willfully, corruptly, and falsely depose, swear, and testify, in substance, among other things, that he, the said Turley, did not, in the month of June, 1898, at Lawrence county, Ind., say to and in the presence and hearing of Noble McPheeters and Robert Ellston that he, said Turley, had paid said Duncan the sum of $25 at three different times, and subsequently had met said Duncan in the city of Bedford, in said state, and offered him $100, which sum he refused, because the same was not large enough to further corrupt him, and influence his actions and conduct as such engineer. The falsity of the testimony is specifically alleged, and it is also averred that whether appellee made such statement, setting it forth, was material to the point in question before the grand jury. It has been held by this court that the position of engineer or surveyor of gravel roads, created by our statutes, is an office of trust and profit under the laws of this state, within the meaning of section 2096, Burns' Rev. St. 1894 (section 2009, Rev. St. 1881; section 2009, Horner's Rev. St. 1897), concerning bribery of public officers. State v. Duncan (this term) 54 N. E. 1066;State v. Ray (this term) 54 N. E. 1067. The grand jury had jurisdiction to investigate and return indictments for all felonies committed within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of said county. Sections 1366, 1721, 1735, Burns' Rev. St. 1894 (sections 1314, 1652, 1666, Rev. St. 1881; sections 1314, 1652, 1666, Horner's Rev. St. 1897). The duty of the grand jury is to “diligently inquire,” to obtain “legal evidence,” to discover and detect crime, and...