Commonwealth v. Wright

<p>Perjury — Indictment.</p> <p>An indictment against J. W. for perjury alleged that “ J. W., late resident of Maynard, in the county of Middlesex and Commonwealth aforesaid,” on a day named, “ with force and arms ” at a place named, before a district court liolden at that place by the standing justice of the court, a certain complaint then pending in that court between the Commonwealth and M. for the illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor for sale came on to he tried, and was then and there in due form of law tried before that court, and that upon the trial of the complaint J. W. was called as a witness and was duly sworn by the standing justice; and then set out the details of the alleged perjury. Held, that the words quoted might be rejected as meaningless; and that, these words having been rejected, the averments were sufficient to show the regularity of the legal proceedings in the course of which the alleged perjury was committed.</p> <p>An indictment for perjury alleged that the defendant, at a time and place named, was called and duly sworn as a witnéss upon the trial in a district court of a complaint against M. for the illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors; and that it became a material question whether certain intoxicating liquors seized in a town named were the property of M. It then alleged in detail, in respect to different parcels of the liquors so seized, that the defendant testified that one of the parcels was the property of A., and was purchased by the defendant for A., that another of the parcels was the property of B. and was purchased by the defendant for B., and also with respect to other parcels which the defendant testified were the property of and were purchased by him for C. and D.; and then averred in detail that no part of the liquors seized was the property of A. or was purchased by the defendant for him, and likewise in respect to B. and the others; and concluded with a general averment that the defendant committed perjury by swearing to “the falsehoods above set forth.” Held, that the indictment sufficiently showed that the defendant’s testimony negatived M.’s ownership of the liquors. Held,, also, that the indictment sufficiently charged perjury in the defendant’s testimony as to A., B., C., and D.</p> <p>An averment in an indictment for perjury, that the defendant was called and sworn as a witness upon the trial of a complaint in a district court, includes the averment that he was “lawfully required to depose the truth in” a “proceeding in a course of justice,” as provided in Pub. Sts. c. 205, § 1.</p> <p>An allegation in an indictment for perjury, that the defendant was called and sworn as a witness upon the trial in a certain district court of a complaint “for the illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor for sale,” sufficiently shows that the alleged perjury was committed in a criminal case.</p> <p>At the trial of an indictment for perjury, the evidence for the government tended to show that á seizure of intoxicating liquors had been made upon the premises of M., who did not deny the ownership of them ; that a complaint issued from a district- court against M., charging him with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors; that, at the trial of the complaint, the present defendant appeared as claimant of the liquors seized, and was sworn as a witness; and that he testified that he purchased the liquors the day before the seizure with money received by him from several persons named, who contributed a certain sum each, and he had the liquors sent to M.’s house. The persons so named denied that they gave the defendant money to purchase the liquors for them ; and the defendant's evidence tended to show that he had named them by mistake, and because he did not have with him a book containing the names of the persons who had advanced him the money for the liquors. Held, that a verdict of guilty was warranted by the evidence.</p>