ing abbrevia tions is insufficient. The fact of a cause having and had all the dates in figures, it being proved that in the original bill all the words were written at full length, and all the dates expressed by words. (g) It seems that if a party produce an affidavit, purporting to have been made by him before commissioners in the country, and make use of it in a motion in the cause, it will be evidence against him that he made it. (h) Where, upon an indictment for perjury committed upon a trial, defendant in a the supposed perjury arose upon evidence given in reply to the been examined testimony of one of the defendants on the former trial, who was may be proved acquitted and examined as a witness, and the indictment for perby parol. jury did not state his acquittal, nor did the minute of the verdict. produced show it; it was held, that although the evidence of a shorthand writer, who stated that the defendant was acquitted and then examined, was not any proof of his acquittal, yet it was good proof that he was examined. (i) An affidavit of a marksman is inadmissible unless it is shown to have been read over to the deponent; secus if made by a party who can write. An affidavit referring to an inadmissible affidavit. Where the assignments of perjury allege that certain persons by name were If perjury is assigned upon an affidavit made by a marksman, either the jurat must state that the affidavit was read over to the defendant, or it must be proved that it was so read. Upon an indictment for perjury in an affidavit, which was signed with the mark of the defendant, but the jurat to which omitted to state that it was read over to the defendant; Littledale, J., said, 'as the defendant is illiterate, it must be shown that she understood the affidavit. In those cases where the affidavit is made by a person who can write, the supposition is that such person was acquainted with its contents, but in the case of a marksman it is not So. If in such case the master by the jurat authenticates the fact of its having been read over, we give him credit; but if he does not, and the fact were so, he ought to be called to prove it. I should have difficulty in allowing the evidence of any other person to that fact.' And no evidence being adduced to show that the affidavit was read over in the presence of the defendant, it was held that the assignments of perjury on this affidavit could not be supported. (j) It was held in the same case, that where one affidavit, which has a perfect jurat, refers to another affidavit which is inadmissible for want of proof that it was read over to the defendant, the former affidavit cannot be read. (k) Where an indictment for perjury, alleged to have been committed in the Insolvent Debtors Court, stated that the defendant gave in his schedule on oath that the same and all its contents were true, and contained a full, true, and perfect account of all his just debts, credits, &c., and then went on to state that the said schedule and its contents were not true, and that certain persons others being so whose names were set out were debtors to the defendant at the time of giving in his schedule; the evidence must be confined to debtors, evidence of is inadmis sible. (g) Reg. v. Christian, MSS. C. S. G. (i) Rex v. Browne, M. & M. 315. Lord Tenterden, C. J., held that the cases specified in the indict Bench. See this case as to another point, ante, p. 89. (j) Rex v. Hailey, R. & M. N. P. C. 91. 1 C. & P. 258. (k) Rex v. Hailey, 1 C. & P. 258. The report does not state in what manner the one affidavit referred to the other. ment, as the defendant could only come prepared to answer those cases, and that evidence that other persons, whose names were not set out in the indictment, were also debtors to the defendant and were omitted in the schedule, was inadmissible. (1) An indictment for perjury alleged that the defendant made an affidavit, which stated that the creditors of the defendant were all, with two exceptions (which were explained) paid in full; whereas the said creditors were not all, with two exceptions only, paid in full; and whereas divers creditors of the defendant exceeding the number of two, naming several creditors, were not paid in full: and evidence being tendered of debts to other persons than those named being unpaid; it was objected that the first assignment was bad as too general, and that evidence as to debts due to others than those named ought not to be admitted. Tindal, C. J., You might have demurred to this assignment only, if it be too general, and as you have not done so, I do not see how I can exclude the evidence.' But I think that omitting the names in one assignment of perjury and inserting them in the next is likely to mislead the defendant; as he would be very likely to suppose that the debts, mentioned in general terms in one assignment, were those particularised in the other;' whereon the evidence was not pressed. (m) not supported by the facts. Where an indictment for perjury alleged that Hallett ex- Averment of hibited a bill in chancery, by which he set forth that he, Bowden, a partnership and Tucker (the defendant), entered into a verbal agreement to become joint dealers and co-partners in the trade or business of druggists; and assigned perjury against the defendant in swearing that he, Hallett, and Bowden did not become joint dealers in the trade or business of druggists; and it appeared that Hallett was a druggist, but the defendant and Bowden were drug brokers, and had nothing to do with Hallett's shop, or the drugs sold there, but were continually in the drug market; but being brokers of the city of London they could not deal in their own names, and it was agreed that they should buy and sell drugs in Hallett's name, and then they were to divide the profit and loss. Abbott, C. J., held that the allegation in the bill in chancery could only apply to an ordinary partnership, and not to such a transaction as this, and consequently, that the indictment could not be supported. (n) Where an indictment for perjury alleged that a bill was pending in the Court of Chancery, and that it became material to ascertain whether an annuity granted by G. Hawkins to the defendant, or granted to J. B. Bostock, as trustee for the defendant, had been paid up to the year 1828, and that the defendant falsely swore that the annuity had not been paid up to 1828; and in order to show that Bostock, who was abroad, had paid the money to the defendant, it was proved that Bostock had sent money to his banker's by his clerk; it was held that what the clerk said about the money at the time he paid it into the banker's was admissible in (7) Rex v. Mudie, 1 M. & Rob. 128. S. C. as Rex v. Moody, 5 C. & P. 23. The indictment is set out in the note to the latter report. (m) Reg. v. Parker, C. & M. 639. Declaration by an agent at paying money into a bank. the time of Parol evidence to add to a deposition. Insufficient examination of rules of a Prefatory averments held to be surplusage. evidence, on the ground that it was a declaration made by an agent acting at the time within the scope of his authority. (0) Upon an indictment for perjury alleged to have been committed upon the hearing of an information for sporting without a game certificate, in order to prove what the defendant swore before the magistrate, his deposition taken in writing before the magistrate was put in, and it was held that evidence was not admissible of other things stated by the defendant, when he was examined as a witness before the magistrate, but which were not contained in the written deposition. (p) An indictment alleged that the prisoner was a member of a benefit society, the rules of which were duly certified, and a tranbenefit society. script of them filed with the clerk of the peace, and that by a rule of the society it was provided that if any free member should have his property destroyed by fire, he should produce a certificate, and if the property was not insured the society would indemnify him to a certain amount if the claim were authenticated by a solemn declaration before a magistrate, and then charged the prisoner with making a false declaration before a magistrate contrary to the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, s. 18, that he had sustained a loss by fire. In order to prove the rules of the society a copy of the rules was produced, and the 24th rule, which was applicable to the allegations in the indictment, was proved to have been examined with the transcript at the clerk of the peace's office; but no other rule had been so examined; and Erskine, J., held that all the rules ought to have been compared. To prove the rules, either the original transcript should have been produced, or an examined copy of the whole of it. It was then objected that the indictment was not proved. But Erskine, J., held that all the statements in the indictment with reference to the society might be rejected as surplusage, if there was enough on the face of the indictment to show that an offence was committed without any reference to the society or its rules, which appeared to be the case. The making of the declaration was then proved, and it referred to the certificate, which was put in; and Erskine, J., allowed the persons whose names purported to be signed to it, to prove that their names were forgeries, as it might go to show that the declaration was wilfully false. (q) (0) Reg. v. Hall, 8 C. & F. 358, Lit- (p) Rex v. Wylde, 6 C. & P. 380, in felony and in summary convictions was not noticed in this case, nor was any reference made to Rex v. Harris, R. & M. C. C. R. 338. And the decision in the text appears at variance with the ordinary practice of cross-examining a witness in cases of felony as to other statements made by him before the committing magistrate, after his deposition has been put in and read. C. S. G. (q) Reg. v. Boynes, 1 C. & K. 65. The declaration mentioned the name of the society, and that the prisoner had 'forwarded to the said society a certificate as required by the 24th rule of the said society.' Quare whether this was not sufficient evidence against the prisoner when connected with the 24th rule, proved to have been examined with the examination The prisoner was indicted for falsely swearing that the signa- A signature of ture to a paper was not his signature. On a trial in a county the prisoner court the paper was produced, and the prisoner swore that he during the never signed it: the judge directed him to write his name on a in which the piece of paper; which he did, and the judge compared it with the perjury was signature to the disputed document. Wightman, J., inclined to alleged to be think that the jury might look at and compare the two signatures. The signing of the name by the prisoner during his examination on oath formed in fact part of the transaction out of which the charge arose; and the counsel for the prisoner not objecting, the paper was handed to the jury. (7) committed. An indictment alleged that the prisoner falsely swore in a Description of county court that the words J. S. were written by J. S. at the a house. house of M. P. in the parish of St. Mellon's, in the county of G. The proof by the judge's notes was that the prisoner swore as alleged, except that he did not describe M. P.'s house as in the parish of St. Mellon's; but Rolfe, B., held that the allegation might well be made out by showing that M. P.'s house was in that parish. (8) indictment for perjury in an affidavit made before the Upon an indictment against Moreau for perjury alleged to have The award of been committed in an affidavit in a cause wherein Moreau was an arbitrator is not admisplaintiff, and Encontre defendant, by deposing that Encontre sible on an owed him 50l., evidence is not admissible that the cause and all matters in dispute were, after the making of the affidavit, referred by consent, and an award made that Encontre owed nothing to Moreau; because the decision of the arbitrator in respect of that fact is no more than a declaration of his opinion, and there is no instance of such a declaration of opinion being received as evidence of a fact against a party to be affected by proof of it in any criminal case. (t) cause was referred to him. before justices, Where perjury is assigned upon the evidence of a witness ex- Conviction amined before magistrates on the hearing of an information, the conviction is not admissible in evidence on the trial of the indictment for perjury, as it is irrelevant to the matter in issue. (u) when not admissible. ceiving stolen Where a count alleged perjury to have been committed before Count for magistrates in examining a charge of feloniously receiving stolen perjury on a silks, knowing them to have been stolen, and it appeared that the charge of reevidence was given upon the hearing of an information, under the goods not 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, for having possession of silks suspected to have supported by been purloined or embezzled; Patteson, J., held that the count proof of was not supported, as the evidence was given upon the specific hearing an charge contained in the information. (v) perjury on information 17 Geo. 3, The jury may infer the corrupt motive of the defendant from under the the circumstances of the case, (w) and in order to show that the c. 56. defendant swore wilfully and corruptly what was not true, evidence Evidence of may be given of expressions of malice used by the defendant towards the person against whom he gave the false evidence. (a) The evidence appears to have been received in this case without objection. The prisoner was indicted for perjury on the hearing of an information against Blackburn for trespassing in pursuit of game; the occupier of the land and two of his men swore that they saw Blackburn on the land on a particular Sunday morning. The prisoner was called by Blackburn as a witness, and swore that Blackburn lodged with him, and that he never was absent from his lodgings on any Sunday morning during the whole time that they lodged together, which included the Sunday on which the alleged offence was committed. Pollock, C. B., was of opinion that the attention of the prisoner ought to have been called to the particular day on which the transaction took place as to which he was asked to speak; and that a general allegation, such as had been made in this case, including all Sundays between two fixed dates, was not sufficiently precise upon which to found an indictment for perjury, and directed an acquittal. (y) An indictment for perjury charged that prisoner swore on a plaint in the County Court for the price of coals obtained on credit at different times, in which it was a material question whether or not the prisoner had received any coals on credit from P., either on account of himself or A., 'that he had never received any coals on credit from P., either on account of himself or A.' Held, that the allegation in the indictment was not too general, although no specific instance was averred in which the prisoner had received coals on credit from P. At the trial the prisoner was asked three or four times by the advocate and judge whether he did at any time, either on his own account or that of A., have any coals on credit from P., to which the prisoner always answered, I did not.' Held, that the prisoner's attention was sufficiently called to the subject so as to found a charge of perjury upon the answer, although no distinct transactions on credit were suggested to him during his examination. (2) (2) Rex v. Munton, 3 C. & P. 498, Lord Tenterden, C. J. 3 Stark. Evid. 860, citing 1 Hawk. c. 69, s. 2. Rex v. Melling, 5 Mod. 349. Reg. v. Muscott, 10 Mod. 192. (y) Reg. v. Stolady, 1 F. & F. 518. This case is very unsatisfactorily reported; no date is given, or anything more than is above stated. As the proof of the offence was on a particular Sunday morning,' the prisoner, if present, must have had his attention drawn to that particular date; and, if absent, still the date would have been known to Blackburn from the summons, and, as he called the prisoner as his witness, he no doubt had communicated the day to him, so that the ground of the decision really did not exist. But supposing the decision to be as reported, it is very confidently submitted that it is erroneous. Suppose a man called to prove an alibi swears that he and the prisoner were in Paris during all the month in which the offence was committed, can it be the law that he is not guilty of perjury because he is not asked as to the particular day? If a man swears that he was not absent from church on any Sunday in January, is not that as precise a swearing as to each and every Sunday as if he were asked as to each in succession? An information, which charges the defendant with killing ten deer between the 1st of July and the 10th of September, without showing the particular days on which they were killed, is good. Rex v. Chandler, 1 Ld. Raym. 581. 1 Salk. 378. And where, on a similar information, the evidence was that the defendant did, within such a time and such a time, steal a deer, so that the time was left as uncertain in the evidence as in the information, it was held sufficient. Reg. v. Simpson, 10 Mod. R. 248. C. S. G. (2) R. v. London, 12 Cox, C. C. 50, per Bovill, C. J., 'We are all of opinion that this conviction was good. The first |