This was an indictment for perjury in the answer to a bill in chancery. The defendant demurred to the indictment, because it neither averred that the allegations in which the perjury was said to consist, were material, nor did it aver facts showing their materiality. The plaintiffs in the bill in chancery were merchants; the defendant was their clerk. The bill charged him with embezzlement of the complainants’ money and goods.
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1995
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1(nem. con.) was of opinion that the indictment was *616insufficient in not averring the materiality of the facts upon which the perjury was assigned; and in not stating facts which would show their materiality.