United States v. Howard

Decision Date06 April 1904
Docket Number1847-1850.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. HOWARD.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

L. T M. Canada, for demurrant.

George Randolph, U.S. Atty.

The following is one of the indictments found:

United States of America. Western District of Tennessee.

In the District Court of the United States within and for the Eastern Division of the said District.

In the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the United States.

October Term, 1893.

The grand jurors of the United States within and for the Eastern Division of the Western District of Tennessee, in said Sixth Judicial Circuit, duly elected, impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire within and for the said division of the district aforesaid, in said circuit, upon their oaths present: On, to wit, the 27th day of October, 1893, an indictment was duly returned to the said court by the grand jury thereof against one G. F. B. Howard for the violation of the postal laws of the United States by placing and causing to be placed in the post office at Jackson, Tennessee, a certain letter in and for executing a scheme and device to defraud, set out in said indictment; the same being No. 1,727. That on the same day and year aforesaid another indictment for a similar offense (No. 1,728) was duly returned by the grand jury aforesaid against Joseph Leger, alias G. F. B. Howard, and that on the day and year aforesaid another indictment (No. 1,729) was returned by the grand jury against said G. F. B. Howard for a similar offense, and that on the day and year aforesaid another indictment for a similar offense (No. 1,730) was returned by the grand jury aforesaid against E. Ross, alias Wm. Lord Moore, alias Joseph Leger, alias G. F. B. Howard and that on the day and year aforesaid another indictment (No. 1,731) was returned by the grand jury thereof, for a similar offense, against said G. F. B. Howard, and that on the day and year aforesaid another indictment (No. 1,732) was returned by the grand jury aforesaid for a similar offense against said G. F. B. Howard. That afterwards, to wit, the 30th day of October, 1893, another indictment (No. 1,758) was returned by the grand jury aforesaid, for a similar offense against said G. F. B. Howard. That on the day and year last aforesaid another indictment (No. 1,759) was returned by the grand jury aforesaid, for a similar offense, against said G F. B. Howard. That after said indictments were so returned by the grand jury, other proceedings being had thereon, said court, by order made and entered on the 3d day of November, 1893, ordered all of the said indictments consolidated, which was accordingly done, and that afterwards, on, to wit, 7th day of November, 1893, after other proceedings duly had, said defendant, G. F. B. Howard, alias, etc., was duly arraigned before the said court upon said indictments so consolidated, and upon such arraignment, then and there for plea said he was not guilty in manner and form as in the consolidated indictments so alleged against him, and that afterwards, upon the defendant's plea of not guilty as aforesaid, on, to wit, at Jackson, Tennessee, on the . . . day of December, 1893, the said G. F. B. Howard upon the said trial did unlawfully procure one Edgar E. Smith, for and on behalf of himself, the said defendant in said causes, falsely upon oath as a witness for the said defendant to depose, say, and give in evidence before the court and a jury then and there duly impaneled and sworn to try the issues raised by the said plea that he, the said Edgar E. Smith, about the beginning of February, 1892, at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England, knew one Wm. Lord Moore, and then and there met the said Wm. Lord Moore, and that the said defendant, G. F. B. Howard, was not the same person at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England, as Wm. Lord Moore, and that about the middle of February, 1892, he, the said Edgar E. Smith, worked for the said Wm. Lord Moore at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England. Whereas in truth and in fact, the said Edgar E. Smith then and there, in Jackson aforesaid, before the said court, upon a trial of said consolidated causes, did not believe he knew one Wm. Lord Moore about the beginning of February, 1892, at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England, and did not then and there believe that he the said Edgar E. Smith met the said Wm. Lord Moore ever at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England; and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Edgar E. Smith did not, about the beginning of February, 1892, meet the said Wm. Lord Moore at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England; and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Edgar E. Smith did not then and there, and never knew any Wm. Lord Moore at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England; and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Edgar E. Smith did not work for the said Wm. Lord Moore in London, England, about the middle of February, 1892, and did not believe that he ever worked for the said Wm. Lord Moore, as he so swore on the said trial; and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Edgar E. Smith did not believe, at the said trial, when he so swore that the defendant on trial, G. F. B. Howard, aforesaid, was not the same person as Wm. Lord Moore; and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Edgar E. Smith, at said Jackson, when he so swore as aforesaid, did not believe that he had any such knowledge, or that the said defendant, G. F. B. Howard, was not the same person at No. 5 Ingersol Road, London, England, as Wm. Lord Moore; and whereas, in truth and in fact, the said G. F. B. Howard, at the time when he did so then and there procure the said Edgar E. Smith to so falsely depose, say, and give in evidence upon his oath before the court and jury as aforesaid, then and there well knew that the said Edgar E. Smith would not give his evidence aforesaid according to the truth, and well knew that the said evidence to be so given before the court and jury by the said Edgar E. Smith was false, willful, and contrary to the oath so to be taken by the said Edgar E. Smith, upon their oaths aforesaid, do find and say that the said G. F. B. Howard did then and there, on, to wit, . . . day of December, 1893, at Jackson, in perjury, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.

Julius A. Taylor.

United States District Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee.

Synopsis of Archbold's indictment for subornation of perjury:

(1) That a certain issue was joined between J. L. and J. W. in a certain suit and court.

(2) That before the trial of said issue one J. S. unlawfully did suborn one J. N. to appear as a witness at the trial for the defendant, and to give in evidence, etc., before the court and jury to be sworn, certain matters material and relevant to the issue, in substance and to the effect following: (Substance of testimony to be given is set out.)

(3) That afterwards the issue was tried by a jury, and J. N. appeared as a witness and was duly sworn, and took his corporal oath before T. L. D., chief justice; he, the said T. L. D., chief justice, having sufficient and competent authority to administer the said oath to said J. N.

(4) That on the trial of said issue it became a material question whether the said J. W. assaulted and beat, etc.

(5) And the said J. N., being sworn, falsely, corruptly, and willfully before said jurors did depose and swear, amongst other things, in substance and to the effect following: (Testimony given is here set out.)

(6) Whereas, in truth and in fact (perjury is here assigned)

(7) And whereas, in truth and in fact, the said J. S., at the time he suborned said J. N., well knew (pursuing the words in the assignment of perjury).

Synopsis of indictment in case No. 1,848:

(1) That the grand jury of 'said court' returned an indictment against Howard.

(2) That defendant was duly arraigned before said court, and pleaded not guilty.

(3) That afterwards on the trial the defendant did unlawfully procure one Edgar E. Smith falsely upon oath as a witness for defendant to depose, say, and give in evidence before 'the court and a jury' that in the month of, etc. (testimony is here set out).

(4) That the testimony so given being material testimony.

(5) That, in truth and in fact, the said Smith did not believe he knew, and did not know, Wm. Lord Moore, etc. (testimony is here falsified).

(6) That defendant, Howard, at the time he procured the said Smith to falsely depose, well knew the said Smith would not give his evidence according to the truth, and that the evidence was false, willful, and contrary to the oath so to be taken by the said Smith and contrary to the said Smith's belief.

The conclusion in both Archbold's form and in the present indictment is omitted.

The three other indictments against Howard are similar to the one above digested.

Demurrer of the defendant:

The defendant, G. F. B. Howard, demurs to the indictment presented and filed herein because said indictment is not sufficient in law, and does not charge a crime, for the following reasons, which are assigned as grounds of the demurrer:

(1) It is nowhere alleged or shown in the indictment by what court, or before whom, Edgar E. Smith (the witness defendant is charged with unlawfully procuring to testify falsely) took the oath required of witnesses, and that the court or person administering the oath had authority to administer the same. Nor is it even alleged in the indictment that said witness was ever sworn by any one.

(2) It is not alleged or shown in the indictment that the testimony of Edgar E. Smith (the witness defendant is charged with unlawfully procuring to testify falsely) was given by him willfully and contrary to his oath.

(3) The indictment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Maresca v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 27, 1921
    ...States, and not be duplicitous. Dealy v. U.S., 152 U.S. 539, 14 Sup.Ct. 680, 38 L.Ed. 545; U.S. v. McKinley (C.C.) 127 F. 170; U.S. v. Howard (D.C.) 132 F. 325. Still, constitute a good indictment under section 37, it must be charged that the conspiracy was to do some acts made a crime by t......
  • The State v. Tedder
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 8, 1922
    ...... prosecution will be barred. Standard Encyc. Proc. p. 554;. United States v. Butler, 38 F. 498; Kentucky v. Cooper, 106 Ky. 909. (c) The acquittal of the accused ... material question and the alleged false testimony. United. States v. Howard, 132 F. 325; Gibson v. State, . 44 Ala. 17; Kelly on Crim. Law, sec. 828; State v. Coyne, 214 ......
  • Rinker v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 23, 1907
    ......224, 22. Sup.Ct. 889, 46 L.Ed. 1137; United States v. Jackson. (C.C.) 2 Fed. 502; United States v. Potter. (C.C.) 56 F. 83, 95; United States v. Conrad. (C.C.) 59 F. 458, 461; Hume v. United States,. 55 C.C.A. 407, 414,. [151 F. 757] . 118 F. 689, 696; United States v. Howard (D.C.) 132. F. 325, 335; State v. Sammons, 95 Ind. 22;. Kenney v. State, 5 R.I. 385; State v. Findley, 77 Mo. 338; State v. Brooks, 33 Kan. 708, 711, 7 P. 591. The time of its commission is not made an. ingredient of this offense. The common understanding of the. words 'on or about,' when ......
  • State v. Marvel
    • United States
    • Court of General Sessions of Delaware
    • February 25, 1924
    ...affects the common law rules or the question before us. See Rex v. Perrott, 2 Maule & St. 385 (105 Eng. Repr. 422); U. S. v. Howard (D. C.) 132 F. 325; State v. Gallaugher, 123 Iowa, 378, 98 N. W. 906; Thomas v. State, 54 Ark. 584, 16 S. W. That question is whether an allegation that "Marve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT