United States v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 14 April 1890 |
| Citation | 43 F. 67 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. EDWARDS. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
M. D Wickersham, Dist. Atty., for the United States.
J. J Parker, for defendant.
To constitute perjury, it is essential that the oath was administered in the manner prescribed by law, and by some person duly authorized to administer the same, in the matter wherein it was taken. The false statement must be material to the issue in the case in which it was made, and it must be willfully made. U.S. v. Stanley, 6 McLean, 409. Perjury cannot be committed unless the person taking the oath not only swears to what is false, or what he does not believe to be true, but does so willfully. U.S. v. Dennee, 3 Woods, 39; U.S. v. Evans, 19 F. 912; 3 Greenl.Ev. § 189; 2 Bish.Crim.Law, §§ 1017-1046; U.S. v Hearing, 26 F. 744. Rash or reckless statements on oath are not perjury, but the oath must be willfully corrupt. Authorities supra, and U.S. v. Moore, 2 Low. 232. The Revised Statutes of the United States, Sec. 5392, under which this indictment is found, makes it of the essence of the offense of perjury that it be committed willfully. U.S. v. Shellmire, Baldw. 378. But it is contended by the district attorney that the word 'corruptly,' used in the indictment, is the equivalent of 'willfully.' The understanding of the court is that the two words have an entirely different meaning. 'Corruptly' means viciously, wickedly. 'Willfully' means with design, with some degree of deliberation. To say that testimony was corrupt is to say that it was wicked or vicious, whereas, to say that it was willful is to aver that it was given with some degree of deliberation; that it was not due to surprise, inadvertence or mistake, but to design. The statute uses the word 'willfully,' and makes it of the essence of the offense; and the court is not persuaded that the averment that a false oath was corruptly taken is of the same import as the averment that it was willfully taken. The court being of the opinion that willfulness is an essential ingredient for the offense of perjury under section 5392, Rev. St., it must be charged in the indictment, or the indictment will be bad.
The first count in the indictment under consideration does not aver with distinctness before what tribunal, officer, or person the oath was made, or by whom it was administered; and it fails to aver that the matter subscribed and stated by the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townsend v. United States, 6928.
...in addition, he must suppose that he is breaking the law." American Surety Co. v. Sullivan, 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 605, 606. In United States v. Edwards, C.C., 43 F. 67 (cited by appellant) the court said: "`Willfully' means with design, with some degree of deliberation." In Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. ......
-
United States v. Howard
...3, 25 Fed.Cas. 816, No. 14,945; U.S. v. Stowell, 2 Curt. 153, 27 Fed.Cas. 1350, No. 16,409; U.S. v. Hearing (C.C.) 26 Fed. 744; U.S. v. Edwards (C.C.) 43 F. 67; v. Evans (D.C.) 19 F. 912; 2 Bish.Cr.Pr. (3d Ed.) 1019, Rex. v. Hilton, Tremaine, P.C. 174. With such an array of authorities cite......
-
Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. State, 3 Div. 316
...when used in a statute generally imports a wrongful design to acquire some unauthorized advantage. 'In the case of United States v. Edwards, C.C. (Ala.) 43 F. 67, and court held in effect that the word corruptly as used in an indictment for perjury is not synonymous with willfully, since th......
-
United States v. Rose
...U.S. 932, 71 S.Ct. 804, 95 L.Ed. 1361. 5 Seymour v. United States, 8 Cir., 1935, 77 F.2d 577, 99 A.L.R. 880. See also United States v. Edwards, C.C.S.D.Ala. 1890, 43 F. 67; State v. Mercer, 1905, 101 Md. 535, 61 A. 220, 221; People ex rel. Hegeman v. Corrigan, 1909, 195 N.Y. 1, 87 N.E. 792,......