United States v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 07 March 1892 |
| Citation | 54 F. 488 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SINGLETON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
M. D Wickersham, U.S. Dist. Atty.
T. C Stevens and I. M. Davison, for defendant.
The indictment charges the defendant with the commission of perjury in testifying as a witness on the proceeding for 'final proof' in the homestead entry of one William A. West, on the 1st of October, 1890. In giving testimony on said proceeding it was material to show that said West had resided on or cultivated the land covered by his homestead entry for the term of five years immediately succeeding the filing of the affidavit required by law to be made by him at the time he made the entry. The indictment avers that defendant did in giving his said testimony depose and say that William A. West settled and established a residence on said homestead land (describing it) about the year 1882, and that he cultivated about one half to one acre for five seasons or more; with the proper averments that such statements were made on oath duly administered, etc., and that they were knowingly and willfully false, etc.
To found an indictment for perjury one of the requisite circumstances is that the matter sworn to must be material to the question depending; and the materiality of the matter sworn to must be expressly averred, or it must be clearly disclosed by the facts as stated on the face of the indictment. It must clearly appear that it was material, or it must be alleged to be so; and the question of materiality is for the court. The specific statements by the defendant that the homesteader had settled and established a residence on the land about 1882, and had cultivated a small portion of it for five seasons or more, may or may not have been material. It does not appear by facts, as stated on the face of the indictment, that such matter was material, and there is no express averment that it was so. The proceeding, as I have said, was the making of 'final proof' in a homestead entry, and it was material whether the homestead applicant had resided on or cultivated the land entered for the term of five years immediately succeeding the filing of the affidavit required to be made by him at the time of the entry. The indictment does not aver that the defendant made any such material statements on oath. It does not anywhere appear in the indictment that the entry was made in the year 1882. If it did, it could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Gaudin
...a question of "law" that warrants dismissal.) See, e.g., United States v. Shinn, 14 F. 447, 452 (CC Ore.1882); United States v. Singleton, 54 F. 488, 489 (SD Ala.1892); United States v. Bedgood, 49 F. 54, 60 (SD Ala.1891); Nelson v. State, 32 Ark. 192, 195 (1877). And some of the other cite......
-
US v. Taylor
...an element in the crime of perjury, is one for the court. Carroll v. United States, 16 F.(2d) 951, 954 (2d Cir.1927). United States v. Singleton, 54 Fed. 488 (S.D.Ala.1892). Cothran v. State, 39 Miss. 541, 547 ... It would be incongruous and contrary to well-established principles to leave ......
-
People v. Ianniello
...sworn, when an element in the crime of perjury is one for the court. Carroll v. United States, 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 951. United States v. Singleton (5 Cir.), 54 F. 488. Cothran v. State, 39 Miss. 541, Although as a question of law the trial court determines the legality and propriety of question......
-
United States v. Freedman, 605
...v. Alu, 246 F.2d 29 (2 Cir. 1957); Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 298, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692 (1929); United States v. Singleton, 54 F. 488 (S.D.Ala.1892). The original perjury statute, 1 Stat. 116, did not mention materiality. The predecessor to Section 1621 had consolidated ......