<p>Perjury — Companion Case — Precedent.</p> <p>Where, upon appeal from a conviction of perjury, the issues raised were substantially the same as those raised in a companion case which was decided adversely to the appellant, they need not be again reviewed, and the judgment is affirmed.</p> <p>[Behearing denied March 29, 1916. — Beporter.]</p>
Decided 1916-02-16
DAVIDSON, Judge.
¶1
Appellant was convicted of perjury, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
¶2
This is a companion case to Beed v. State, this day decided, in an opinion by Judge Harper, cause No. 3938. The questions are, it may be stated, the same in both cases, except perhaps one question in the Beed case not in this case. Inasmuch as the Beed case has been affirmed it would serve no practical purpose to write an extended opinion in this case. Hpon the authority of that case the judgment herein will be affirmed.
