Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for any such counterfeit money, coins, dies, hubs, molds, plates, and other things, and for any such obligations, and if any such be found, to seize and secure the same, and to make return thereof to the proper authority; and all such counterfeit money, coins, dies, hubs, molds, plates, and other things, and all such counterfeit obligations so seized shall be forfeited to the United States."

The only difference between the new section and the old section as shown in First Supplement, page 890, is the leaving out of the provision that a search warrant may be served or acted upon only in the day-time. Under the new law, officers may act under the search warrant, when issued as therein provided, at any time, unless, perchance, the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures may be read into the statute, and it doubtless is.

[blocks in formation]

105. Proof.

105a. Proof Continued.

105b. Other Cases.

106. Subornation of Perjury.

106a. Attorney Suborning.

106b. Elements of Subornation.

107. Stealing or Altering Process, Procuring False Play, etc. 108.

Obstructing Process or Assaulting an Officer, etc.

108a. Advice to Avoid Service of Process May Be Obstruction.

109. Destroying or Stealing, etc., Public Records.

110. Destroying Records by Officer in Charge.

111. Forging Signature of Judge, etc.

112. Intimidation or Corruption of Witness or Grand or Petit Juror or

Officer.

112a. Illustrations of Intimidation.

113.

Conspiring to Intimidate Party, Witness or Jury.

114. Attempt to Influence Jury.

115. Allowing Prisoner to Escape.

115a. Applies to State Jailer.

116.

Rescuing, etc., Prisoner, etc.; Concealing, etc., Prisoner for Whom
Warrant has been Issued.

117. Rescue at Execution; Rescue of Prisoner and Rescue of Body of

Executed Offender.

118. Extortion by Internal Revenue Informers.

119. Misprision of Felony.

120. Bribery.

121. Bribery of a Judge or Judicial Officer.

122. Judge or Judicial Officer Accepting Bribe, etc.

123. Juror, Referee, Master, United States Commissioner or Judicial Officer, etc., Accepting Bribe.

123a. Indictment-Who is Officer.

124. Witness Accepting Bribe.

125. Members of Congress Accepting Bribes, etc.

99. Perjury.-Section 125 of the new Code, which contains 5392 of the old statutes, without changing the same, reads as follows:

"Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, shall wilfully and contrary to such oath state or subscribe any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than five years."

Common law perjury was practically the same as this statutory offense. Perjury, at Common Law, was the wilful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath in a judicial proceeding or course of justice, of false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry.

$ 100. Form of Oath Immaterial.-An oath, as understood in prosecutions under this statute, is one's solemn asseveration, uttered in an appeal to the Supreme Being, under the sanction of his religion, that a thing stated or to be stated by him is true, made to a civil officer authorized to administer or receive it. It must, therefore, be a lawful one; that is, it must be legally administered, by an officer duly authorized, but the form is immaterial, provided the witness professes it to be binding on him. When a witness comes to be sworn, it is to be assumed that he has settled with himself in what way he shall be sworn, and he should make it known to the Court, and should be sworn with uplifted hand, or by any other unusual mode, though not conscientiously opposed to swearing on the Gospel, and depose falsely, he subjects himself to prosecution for perjury. See Clark, Bishop, and Wharton on Perjury. In United States vs. Mallard, 40 Federal, 151, the Court held that the affiant, being unable to write, the Commissioner reduced his statement to writing, ending with the jurat, "Sworn to before me," and said to him, "If you swear to this statement, put your mark here." The affiant put his mark. This was held to be an oath. In United States vs. Baer, 6 Federal, 42, the evidence of a notary public showed that he had used a form

substantially as that required by the local state statute, in swearing a witness, and the Court held that the oath was sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of perjury.

§ 101. Competent Tribunal, Officers, Etc.-Having been satisfied that the person took an oath in some form recognized as religiously binding, the next question under the statute is whether such an oath was taken before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in a case in which a law of the United States authorized an oath to be administered. Under the Common Law, the false testimony must be in a judicial proceeding, or in the course of justice; but the statute under consideration includes much more than the Courthouse testimony and oath. It does not, however, include every affidavit or declaration. In United States vs. Babcock, 4 McLean, 113, it was held that an oath administered to a witness by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, as to the distance from the Court to his home, taken by the witness to support his claim for mileage, was not taken under any law of the United States, and, therefore, a prosecution for perjury could not be sustained. In United States vs. Maid, 116 Federal, 650, the Court held that an affidavit of the nonmineral character of the land, made in support of a homestead entry, although a regulation of the land office required such an affidavit to be made in certain states, since it was not required by Revised Statutes 2290, which prescribed the contents of a homestead affidavit, would not sustain a prosecution for perjury.

In United States vs. Howard, 37 Federal, the facts showed that the defendant entered a homestead claim, and on application to commute his entry to a cash entry, he made affidavit that he had actually moved on the land in December, etc., taking his oath before a Judge of Probate. The statute did not authorize a Judge of Probate to administer such an oath; and the Court, upon demurrer, held the indictment to be fatally defective, upon the proposition that the defendant had not taken his oath before some competent tribunal, officer, or person. In United States vs. Manion, 44 Federal, page 800, the Court held that perjury cannot be assigned upon affidavit made before a notary public, by a person in support of his claim to a preference right to purchase coal land under certain sections of the Revised Statutes, because

notaries public are not authorized by any law of the United States to administer oaths to affidavits required by the rules and regulations of the general land office, the regulations showing that persons desiring to make affidavits for coal lands must do so before a Register or Receiver of the Land office. Judge Paul, in United States vs. Law, 50 Federal, 915, held that Section 778 of the Revised Statutes, which authorized notaries public to administer oaths in all cases in which Justices of the Peace had power to administer them, gave no power to administer an oath in an investigation by the Post-office Department, as to the alleged loss of a registered letter, for there was no statute which gave Justices such power, and, therefore, no indictment for perjury could be based upon false statements in an affidavit made before a notary public in such an investigation. Before the Act of February 26, 1881, a notary public had no authority to administer oaths to officers of national banks for the verification of their reports to the Comptroller, and false statements in such reports, where verification was had before a notary public, would not have sustained prosecution for perjury. United States vs. Curtis, 107 U. S., 671. An oath taken before a Commissioner of the Circuit Court in taking bail, where the laws of the State do not authorize the State officers mentioned in the statute to administer oaths for similar purposes, will not sustain a prosecution for perjury. United States vs. Garcelon, 82 Federal, 611. Under the authority of United States vs. Lamson, 165 Federal, page 80, an affidavit under Section 6 of the Oleomargarine Act, which requires wholesale dealers to keep such books and render such returns as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, may, by regulation, require, under prescribed penalties for its violation, and the regulation thereunder made requiring an oath to the returns, does not have the force of law in such sense that a false oath to a return subjects the maker to prosecution for perjury, and an indictment so laid was quashed by Judge Brown.

§ 101a. Oath Must Be Authorized.-A perjury cannot be assigned upon an oath that was not authorized or required by law. In the case of U. S. vs. George, 228 U. S., page 14, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the lower Court, wherein it was held that an

« AnteriorContinuar »