writ directed to the sheriff; the writ of trial put in evidence was directed to the sheriff, and the return was of a trial before him; but it was proved, that, in fact, the trial took place before a deputy, not the under-sheriff:-Held, no variance. Reg. v. Dunn, 2 M. C. C. 297; 1 C. & K. 730. 11. Proof of Indictment. ment with the words "true bill " indorsed on it, it being necessary that a regular record should be drawn up and proved, either by its production or by an examined copy of it. Porter v. Cooper, 6 C. & P. 354-Patteson. On the trial of an indictment for perjury at the Central Criminal Court, to prove the fact of a former trial in the same court :-Held, that the production, by the officers of the court, of the caption, the indictment, with the indorsement of the prison By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 22, "a "certificate containing the substance "and effect only (omitting the form"al part) of the indictment and tri-er's plea, the verdict, and the sen"al for any felony or misdemeanor, "purporting to be signed by the "clerk of the court or other officer "having the custody of the records "of the court where such indictment was tried, or by the deputy of such "clerk or other officer (for which "certificate a fee of 68. 8d. and no "more shall be demanded or taken), "shall upon the trial of any indict"ment for perjury, or subornation "of perjury, be sufficient evidence "of the trial of such indictment for "felony or misdemeanor, without 66 66 proof of the signature or official "character of the person appearing "to have signed the same. On an indictment for perjury committed on the hearing of a parish appeal at the quarter sessions, the production of the sessions book is not sufficient proof that the appeal came on to be heard; and a regular record ought to be made upon parchment, the same as on a return to a certiorari, and that record, or an examined copy, must be produced. Rex v. Ward, 6 C. &. P. 366-Park. An allegation, that “ on &c., at &c., a certain indictment was preferred at the quarter sessions of the peace then and there holden in and for the county of W., against the defendant and one T. E., which indictment was then and there found a true bill," is not supported by the production of the original indict tence of the court upon it, together with the minutes of the trial made by the officer in court, was sufficient evidence of it; and that the production of neither the record nor a certificate, under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 13, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 22, was necessary. Reg. v. Newman, 3 C. & K. 240; 2 Den. C. C. 390; 16 Jur. 111; 21 L. J., M. C. 75; 5 Cox, C. C. 547. 12. Witnesses and Corroborative Evidence. The evidence of one witness is not sufficient to convict of perjury, as there would be only one oath against another. Rex v. Lee, 3 Russ. C. & M. 78; S. P., Champney's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 258. But two witnesses are not essentially necessary to disprove the fact sworn to; for, if any material circumstance is proved by other witnesses in confirmation of the witness who gives the direct testimony of perjury, it may turn the scale and warrant a conviction. Ib. And the rule does not apply where the evidence consists of the contradictory oath of the party accused. Rex v. Knill, 5 B. & A. 929, n. To prove perjury, it is sufficient if the matter alleged to be falsely sworn is disproved by one witness, if, in addition to the evidence of that witness, there is proof of an account, or a letter written by the defendant contradicting his state- | at another place six miles off:ment on oath. Rex v. Mayhew, 6 Held, to be sufficient proof of the C. & P. 315-Denman. assignment of perjury. Ib. On an indictment for perjury, alleged to have been committed at the quarter sessions, the chairman at the quarter sessions ought not to be called upon to give evidence as to what the defendant swore at the quarter sessions. Reg. v. Gazard, 8 C. & P. 595-Patteson. Where perjury was assigned upon a statement made by the prisoner on oath, upon a trial at Nisi Prius, that in June, 1851, he owed no more than one quarter's rent to his landlord, and the prosecutor swore that the prisoner owed five quarters' rent at that date; and to corroborA., in an affidavit stated that he ate the prosecutor's evidence, a withad paid all the debts proved under ness was called, who proved that in his bankruptcy, except two, as to August, 1850, the prisoner had adwhich he explained; in support of mitted to him that he then owed his an indictment for perjury upon that landlord three or four quarters' rent: affidavit several creditors were call--Held, first, that this was not such ed, who each proved the non-payment of his own debt :-Held, that this was not sufficient to warrant a conviction, and that as to the nonpayment of each debt, it was necessary to have the evidence of two witnesses, or of one witness, and such corroborative testimony as is equal to the testimony of a second witness. Reg. v. Parker, Car. & M. 639 -Tindal. The rule, that the testimony of a single witness is not sufficient to sustain an indictment for perjury, is not a mere technical rule, but a rule founded on substantial justice; and evidence, confirmatory of that one witness in some slight particulars only, is not sufficient to warrant a conviction. Reg. v. Yates, Car. & M. 132; 5 Jur. 636-Coleridge. Although an assignment of perjury must be proved by two witnesses, it is not necessary to prove by two witnesses every fact which goes to make out the assignment of perjury. Reg. v. Roberts, 2 C. & K. 607-Patteson. A., to prove an alibi for B., had sworn that B. was not out of his sight between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. on a certain day, and on this perjury was assigned. Proof by one witness, that between those hours A. was at one place on foot, and by another witness, that between those hours B. was walking FISH. DIG.-31. corroboration as is necessary to sustain an indictment for perjury. Reg. v. Boulter, 3 C. & K. 236; 2 Den. C. C. 396; 16 Jur. 135; 21 L. J., M. C. 57; 5 Cox, C. C. 543. Held, secondly, that two witnesses are not essentially necessary to contradict the oath on which the perjury is assigned, but that there must be something more than the oath of one, to shew that one party is more to be believed than the other. Ib. To support an indictment for perjury there must be something proved in the case for the prosecution, making the oath of the prosecutor preferable to that of the defendant; there need not be two distinct oaths, as one oath and circumstances may be sufficient. Ib. A person may be indicted for perjury who gives false evidence before a grand jury when examined as a witness before them upon a bill of indictment; and another witness on the same indictment, who is in the grand jury-room while such person is under examination, is competent to prove that such witness swore before the grand jury, and so is a police officer, who was stationed within the grand jury-room door, to receive the different bills at the door, and take them to the foreman of the grand jury; these sons not being sworn to secrecy, al per that she had not produced those invoices, but that she had produced others of the dates of which he made a memorandum at the time: -Held, that the memorandum was a sufficient corroboration upon which to convict. Reg. v. Webster, 1 F. & F. 515-Cockburn. The prisoner was convicted of perjury. He was a policeman, having laid an information against a publican for keeping open his house after lawful hours, and swore, on the hearing, that he knew nothing of the matter except what he had been told, and that "he did not see any person leave the defendant's house after eleven" on the night in question. The perjury was assigned on this last allegation, and the evidence to prove its falsehood was, that the prisoner when laying the information, said that "he had seen four men leave the house after eleven," and that he could swear to one as W. On two other occasions the prisoner made a similar statement to two other witnesses; and W. and others did, in fact, leave the house after eleven o'clock on the night in question; that on the hearing the prisoner acknowledged that he had offered to smash the case for 30s.; that he had talked, in the presence of another witness, of making the publican give him mon though the grand jury is so. Reg. v. Hughes, 1 C. & K. 519-Tindal. The prisoner was charged with perjury, for having falsely sworn before magistrates at petty sessions, that D. R. was the father of her illegitimate child. At the trial of the prisoner the imputed father, D. R., swore that he never had intercourse with her. In corroboration of D. R., a witness was called who swore that the prisoner had told witness, at a time when she generally denied being with child, that "D. R. had never touched her clothes" :-Held, that, as the negation was made by the prisoner at a time when she generally denied being with child, it was so far a part of such general denial that, although it could not be altogether withdrawn from the jury, it was not a corroboration of D. R.'s testimony, on which alone they could convict her. Another assignment of perjury was, that on the same occasion the prisoner had falsely sworn that her master, who was uncle of D. R., had promised her that he would raise her wages, and allow her to lie in at his house, if she would swear the child to a person other than his nephew, D. R.: -Held, that such statement was not material to the issue so as to constitute the crime of perjury. Reg. v. Owen, 6 Cox, C. C. 105-ey to settle it; and he had, in fact, Martin. offered to the publican to settle it Although it is not necessary that for 17., and had said that he had rethe alleged perjury should be prov-ceived 10s. to smash the case, and ed by two witnesses in contradic- was to have 10s. more:-Held, that tion of the prisoner, it is requisite the evidence was sufficient to prove that the perjury should be proved the perjury assigned, and that the by something more than the mere conviction was right. Reg. v. Hook, contradictory oath of the prosecu- Dears. & B. C. C. 606; 4 Jur., N. tor. He must be corroborated by S. 1026; 27 L. J., M. C. 222; 8 some independent testimony. Reg. Cox, C. C. 5. v. Braithwaite, 8 Cox, C. C. 254; 1 F. & F. 638-Watson. A party was charged with having falsely sworn that certain invoices bearing certain dates were produced by her to C. The only witness called was C., who swore 13. Trial. It is the practice of the Central Criminal Court not to try an indietment for perjury arising out of s civil suit, while that suit is in any way undetermined, except in cases where the court in which it is pending postpones the decision of it in order that the criminal charge may be first disposed of. Rex v. Ashburn, 8 C. & P. 50-Parke. See Peddell v. Rutter, 8 C. & P. 340. 14. False Declarations. (a) Customs. Making false declarations in matters relating to the customs, see 16 & 17 Vict. c. 107, s. 198, and 18 & 19 Vict. c. 96, s. 38. (b) On Registration of Voters and 66 at Parliamentary Elections. the three questions to the voters under sect. 53, it is sufficient if the town clerk does it in his presence, and by his direction; neither is it necessary to shew that the agent who required the questions to be put was expressly appointed by the candidate; it is sufficient to shew that he has acted as agent for the candidate. Reg. v. Spalding, Car. & M. 568-Patteson. The word wilfully, in an indictment on the 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 58, for giving a false answer at the poll, should be construed in the same way as in an indictment for perjury, and be supported by the same sort of evidence. Reg. v. Ellis, Car. & M. 564; 6 Jur. 287 Patteson. By 28 & 29 Vict. c. 36, s. 10, persons changing their abodes be"fore the last day of July in any year, and objected to, may make A voter having changed his resi"declarations as to the true place dence since the last registration, "of their abodes and qualification, cannot be indicted under 2 & 3 "for the purpose of being registered Will. 4, c. 45, for swearing that he as voters, and, by s. 11, persons has still the same qualification, if "falsely signing such declarations, the sheriff's deputy should omit, at "will be guilty of a misdemeanor, the time the voter tenders his vote, punishable by fine or imprison- to read over to him the specific ❝ment for a term not exceeding one qualification from the register. year." Reg. v. Lucy, Car. & M. 511Wightman. 66 66 66 An indictment for wilfully making a false answer to the third question put to a party tendering his vote at an election of members of parliament, in pursuance of 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 58, had been removed by certiorari. At the trial, several objections were taken, grounded on the omission of proper allegations in the indictment:Held, that, being on the record, they should be left to the decision of the court. Reg. v. Bowler, Car. & M. 559; 6 Jur. 287-Patteson. Where an averment states the words of the affirmative answer, they must be proved as alleged. Ib. On an indictment under 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 58, for giving a false answer at the poll at an election of members of parliament for a borough, it is not essential that the returning officer should himself put On an indictment against a voter for making a false declaration as to his possession of the same qualification, under 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 58, a copy of the original register, made according to s. 55, may be received in evidence; and it is sufficient if it resembles the original in respect of the voter's name and description. Reg. v. Dodsworth, 8 C. & P. 218; 2 Jur. 131-Denman. The words, "the same qualification," mean that the voter must, at the time of the election, be in possession of the identical qualification in respect of which he was registered. It is not enough if he possesses premises of a similar description. Ib. If a person knew that at the time of polling he gave a false answer as to his having the same qualification as at the time of registration, it would be no defence to an indictment for that offence that he acted under the advice of an electioneering committee; but if, possessing property of equal value with that for which he was registered, he acted bonâ fide, and under an impression that he was entitled to vote, he ought to be acquitted. Ib. Reg. v. Bent, 2 C. & K. 179; 1 Where a count alleged that the prisoner falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully personated a burgess at an election of councillors for a borough:-Held, no offence under this section or at common law. Ib. The son of a burgess, of the same name as his father, living in the house in respect of which the father had been qualified, but the father having for some time been absent, and the son paying the rates, is not indictable for untruly answering the questions put to voters upon his voting. Reg. v. Goodman, 1 F. & F. 502-Wightman. (d) Before Magistrates. An indictment on 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, s. 13, for making a false declaration before a magistrate, stated, that, by the rules of a benefit society, any full free member of it who sustained a loss by an accidental fire was to be indemnified to the extent of 157., on making a declaration be Upon an indictment, in falsely taking the free-holder's oath at an election of a knight of the shire in the name of J. W.; it appearing by competent evidence that the freeholder's oath was administered to a person who polled on the second day of the election by the name of J. W., who swore to his freehold and place of abode, and that there was no such person; and that the defendant voted on the second day, and was no freeholder, and sometime after boasted that he had done the trick, and was not paid enough for the job, and was afraid he should be pulled up for his bad vote; and it not appearing that more than one false vote was given on the second day's poll, or that the defend-fore a magistrate verifying his loss; ant voted in his own name, or in any other than the name of J. W.: -Held, that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to presume that the defendant voted in the name of J. W., and consequently to find him guilty of the charge as alleged in the indictment. Rex v. Price, 6 East, 323; 2 Smith, 525. And see Rex v. Leefe, 2 Camp. 139; and Purcell v. M'Namara, 9 East, 157. and that the defendant was a full free member of the society, and had made a false declaration before a magistrate, that he had sustained a loss by fire. On the trial, the rules of the society could not be proved; but held, that the allegations in the indictment respecting the rules might be rejected as surplusage, as the offence of the defendant, in making the false declaration as to the fire, would be an offence within the statute, if no such benefit society had ever existed. Reg. v. Boynes, 1 C. & K. 65-Erskine. The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, s. 18, which enables magistrates to receive voluntary declarations instead of oaths, extends to declarations generally, and is not confined to declarations with respect to the confirmation of written instruments or allegations, or proofs of debts, or of the execution of deeds, or other matters ejusdem generis. Ib. |