¶1This was an indictment for perjury. It assigns the perjury upon a false oath knowingly and corruptly taken before the probate court, touching the legality of an intended marriage, on behalf of the parties for which the plaintiff in error was at the time making application to the court for a marriage license. It is claimed that this is no charge of perjury within the meaning of the crimes act. (S. & C. 405, sec. 9.) We think otherwise. The application was a “ matter . . . depending ” before the “ court,” and the court certainly had power to administer the oath. The motion must be overruled.
20 Ohio St. (N.S.) 330
Call v. State
Decided December 15, 1870
Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1870-12-15
At the v\ vober term, 1870, of the common pleas, James Call was indicted for perjury, in knowingly and corruptly taking a false oath before the probate court, in the matter of his application for license for the marriage of one Carmi Call and Harriet Davis ; the false oath being, that Harriet Davis was a resident of Vinton county, that her father was dead, and that her mother consented to the proposed marriage. The defendant demurred to the indictment.
Decided 1870-12-15