United States v. Landsberg
| Decision Date | 22 December 1882 |
| Citation | 23 F. 585 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LANDSBERG. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
J. G Agar, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty., for the United States.
R. N Waite, for defendant.
Before WALLACE, BENEDICT, and BROWN, JJ.
The accused, having been convicted of perjury, now moves for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. The principal question presented for determination is whether the crime of perjury was committed by the accused when he made the false statement, under oath, which is set forth in the indictment. This statement was made under the following circumstances, as shown at the trial: The accused had been arrested by virtue of a commissioner's warrant upon a charge of having uttered counterfeit coin. He demanded an examination, and, upon such examination, duly held before the commissioner, he offered himself as a witness in his own behalf, and was duly sworn as such. Upon his cross-examination, in answer to a question put without objection, he testified that he had not been in prison in this state, or any other state, when the fact was that he had been imprisoned in the state prison of this state, and also in the state prison of New Jersey. Thereafter, the present indictment was found against him, in which the perjury assigned is the testifying, under the circumstances above stated, that he never was in prison in this state, or any other state.
On the part of the accused the point made is that the false matter so stated by the accused before the commissioner was not material matter, within the meaning of the statute, and therefore the crime created by the statute was not committed.
An essential element of the offense created by the statute (section 5392, Rev. St.) is the materiality of the matter charged to have been falsely stated. The words employed in the statute are 'material matter.' These words were, doubtless, adopted from the common law, and they must be given a signification broad enough to cover, at least, cases of perjury at common law. The rule of the common law in regard to perjury is thus stated by Archbold: 'Every question in cross-examination, which goes to the witness' credit, is material for this purpose. ' Archb. Crim. Pl. & Proc. 817, (Eng. Ed.) The same rule was declared by the twelve judges in Reg. v. Gibbons, 9 Cox, C.C. 105.
The inquiry here, therefore, is whether the imprisonment of the accused in this state and in New Jersey was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fletcher v. State
...Ill. 312; State v. Day, 100 Mo. 242; State v. Hunt, 137 Ind. 537; Williams v. State, 68 Ala. 551; Robinson v. State, 18 Fla. 898; U. S. v. Landsberg, 23 F. 585; Hanscom State, 93 Wis. 273; Comm. v. Parker, 2 Cush. 212; Com. v. Grant, 116 Mass. 17; State v. Voorhees, 52 N. J. L. 351; Henders......
-
United States v. Bressi
...33 Wash. 339, 74 P. 557; State v. Miller, 26 R.I. 282, 58 A. 882, 3 Ann.Cas. 943; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431, 46 P. 713; U.S. v. Landsberg (C.C.) 23 F. 585; v. Moran, 216 Mo. 550, 115 S.W. 1126; People v. Courtney, 94 N.Y. 490; Lang v. U.S., 133 F. 201, 66 C.C.A. 255. The demurrer is overru......
-
United States v. Allen
...Cir., 143 F.2d 204, reversed on other grounds 323 U.S. 606, 65 S.Ct. 548, 89 L.Ed. 495; Blackmon v. United States, supra; United States v. Landsberg, C.C., 23 F. 585; United States v. Shinn, C.C., 14 F. 447, 453. In the Landsberg case, it was stated 23 F. "`Every question in cross-examinati......
-
Metcalf v. State
... ... brought back to Gage, Oklahoma; and whether a certain ... United States Revenue License as a retail liquor dealer, ... otherwise called a government stamp for the ... Williams v. State, 28 Tex.App. 301, 12 ... S.W. 1103. See, also, United States v. Landsberg (C ... C.) 23 F. 585; Washington v. State, 22 Tex.App ... 26, 3 S.W. 228; 2 Bishop's New ... ...