Laughters v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Laughters v. United States

155 F.2d 29, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1946

DocketNo. 10027

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 F.2d 29 (Laughters v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Laughters v. United States, 155 F.2d 29, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164 (6th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for perjury in giving false evidence under oath in the criminal case of another who had been charged with violation of ceiling prices established by the Office of Price Administration. The false swearing consisted in a denial by the appellant that he had told two government agents that he had purchased from the defendant various quantities of liquor at prices in excess of those established by law.

The only meritorious question that we perceive in the record is whether perjury can be predicated upon statements contrary to the sworn statement of the witness made orally prior thereto and proved by two credible witnesses. It is clear that the present issue is not the mere making of contradictory and inconsistent statements concerning these conversations, but in swearing falsely that such conversations were not had, and is controlled by the decision in United States v. Harris, 311 U.S. 292, 61 S.Ct. 217, 85 L.Ed. 196, and not by Phair v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 953, or Clayton v. United States, 4 Cir., 284 F. 537.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for perjury in giving false evidence under oath in the criminal case of another who had been charged with violation of ceiling prices established by the Office of Price Administration. The false swearing consisted in a denial by the appellant that he had told two government agents that he had purchased from the defendant various quantities of liquor at prices in excess of those established by law.

The only meritorious question that we perceive in the record is whether perjury can be predicated upon statements contrary to the sworn statement of the witness made orally prior thereto and proved by two credible witnesses. It is clear that the present issue is not the mere making of contradictory and inconsistent statements concerning these conversations, but in swearing falsely that such conversations were not had, and is controlled by the decision in United States v. Harris, 311 U.S. 292, 61 S.Ct. 217, 85 L.Ed. 196, and not by Phair v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 953, or Clayton v. United States, 4 Cir., 284 F. 537.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F.2d 29, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laughters-v-united-states-ca6-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack