Commonwealth v. Grant

116 Mass. 17, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 6
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 28, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 17 (Commonwealth v. Grant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Grant, 116 Mass. 17, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 6 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Devens, J.

The request made by the defendant was properly declined by the presiding judge. A party not only commits perjury by swearing falsely and corruptly as to the fact which is immediately in issue, but also by so doing as to material circumstances which have a legitimate tendency to prove or disprove [21]*21such fact. He cannot in the latter case exonerate himself from the offence, because, while the circumstances to which he thus swore did not exist, the fact sought to be established by them did exist. Even if the defendant was not married to Linnell, if he corruptly and falsely swore that he had not so represented, that he had not lived with her as his wife and had not made an agreement of separation from her, this testimony was material in the decision of the issue as presented to the Police Court, and might therefore be properly included in the assignments of perjury contained in the indictment. The offence of the defendant consisted in making false statements intended to corrupt the administration of justice, by inducing the magistrate to render a decision based thereupon, and it is not the less an offence because the decision was in fact correct. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

United States v. Gaudin
515 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Commonwealth v. McDuffee
398 N.E.2d 463 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1979)
Commonwealth v. Borans
393 N.E.2d 911 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1979)
Commonwealth v. Giles
228 N.E.2d 70 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
Commonwealth v. Louis Construction Co. Inc.
180 N.E.2d 83 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Goins v. United States
99 F.2d 147 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
People v. Phillips.
205 P. 40 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
In re Sheldon for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
193 P. 967 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1920)
Herndon v. State
72 So. 833 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1916)
Ex Parte Metcalf
1913 OK CR 34 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1913)
Frazier v. State
135 S.W. 583 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Commonwealth v. Nailor
29 Pa. Super. 275 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
People v. . Doody
64 N.E. 807 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
State v. Gibbs
10 Mont. 213 (Montana Supreme Court, 1890)
The People v. . Courtney
94 N.Y. 490 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Dilcher v. State
39 Ohio St. (N.S.) 130 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1883)
Robinson v. State
18 Fla. 898 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1882)
Bradberry v. State
7 Tex. Ct. App. 375 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 17, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-grant-mass-1874.