Commonwealth v. Carel

105 Mass. 582
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

An indictment for perjury should show that in a judicial proceeding, before a court having jurisdiction, or a person having authority to administer the oath, the party accused wilfully made oath to a statement of a material fact, and that such statement was false. This indictment sufficiently shows that the oath was administered in a judicial proceeding, and that the magistrate before whom the proceeding took place was a person duly authorized in administer the oath. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 5 Allen, 499. Gen. Sts. c. 170, § 36. The fact sworn to was material, as the sufficiency of the proposed bail was the subject matter of the inquiry. The indictment then charges that the defendant was lawfully required by the magistrate to make, and did in fact make, a written statement of his circumstances and property, and that, “ being then and there duly sworn, he did then and there falsely, knowingly and corruptly depose and swear in and by said written statement ” in the terms set forth. To swear in and by a written statement can only mean to make a written statement under oath. It is well charged in the indictment that the oath so made was false, wilful and corrupt; and its falsity is then set out by proper averments. It is difficult to see how the charge of making a false oath could be made with greater distinctness. It is not averred that the defendant signed his name to the paper, but the signature is no part of the statement. Its only object is to authenticate it as his declaration. If he made oath to it, he authenticated it effectually, and the want of signature would be immaterial. He is indicted not for signing a false paper, but for falsely swearing to the truth of matters set forth in a written paper. The objections, urged in the motion to quash, lo not appear to us to be well taken. St. 1860, c. 186, § 1.

[586] If the alleged perjury may be considered well charged and proved, it is wholly immaterial whether the defendant had other property, and also whether he was accepted as bail or not. The perjury is complete when the oath is taken, whether the crimina] effects his purpose or not. Rose. Grim. Ev. (6th Am. ed.) 759.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Carel, 105 Mass. 582 (Mass. 1870).

105 Mass. 582 (Commonwealth v. Carel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jeffrey Fortenberry
89 F.4th 702 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)
Commonwealth v. Rivera
121 N.E.3d 1121 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2019)
United States v. Thomas C. Reed
773 F.2d 477 (Second Circuit, 1985)
State v. Blaisdell
253 A.2d 341 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1969)
United States Ex Rel. Starr v. Mulligan
59 F.2d 200 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Steinberg v. United States
14 F.2d 564 (Second Circuit, 1926)
People v. Peck
26 N.Y. Crim. 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
State v. Woolridge
78 P. 333 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1904)
State v. Terline
51 A. 204 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1902)
Commonwealth v. Sargent
129 Mass. 115 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Commonwealth v. Butland
119 Mass. 317 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)
Commonwealth v. Hatfield
107 Mass. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1871)