OHIO

CIRCUIT COURT REPORTS

NEW SERIES-VOLUME XVIII.

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF OHIO.

PROSECUTION FOR ABETTING AND PROCURING PERJURY. Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

ULYSSES G. WALKER V. STATE OF OHIO.

Decided, May 21, 1910.

Criminal Law-Sufficiency of Indictment for Aiding, Abetting and Procuring Perjury-Particular Form of Words Not Necessary in Taking Oath-Exaggeration in Argument to Jury.

1. In an indictment for aiding, abetting and procuring another to commit perjury, the fact that the accused knew that the person whom he aided knew that he was committing perjury is sufficiently alleged by charging that the accused willfully and corruptly aided, abetted and procured the other in making, verifying and falsely swearing to a bank report, "then and there well knowing said report to be false and untrue, and thereby to commit willful and corrupt perjury in the manner and form as aforesaid."

2. One may be found guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of perjury, though the evidence does not show that he was personally present when the perjury was committed.

3. No particular form of words is necessary to the taking of an oath if both the officer who administers it and the person taking it, understand that an oath is being administered.

4. Picturesque and exaggerated language used by counsel for the state in addressing the jury in a criminal case does not necessarily require a reversal of a conviction.

Norton T. Horr and Jay P. Dawley, for plaintiff in error. John A. Cline and Walter D. Meals, contra.

MARVIN, J.; WINCH, J., and HENRY, J., concur.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the court of common pleas of the crime of perjury. The claim on the part of the state being that he aided, abetted and procured one William G. Duncan to knowingly swear falsely in a certain affidavit which was made as to the truth of a certain report, made to the superintendent of banking of the state of Ohio, the said Walker being the president and the said Duncan the treasurer of a banking company known as "the South Cleveland Banking Company." The statute defining perjury and providing for its punishment is Section 6897, Revised Statutes, and reads:

"Whoever either verbally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered, willfully and corruptly states a falsehood as to a material matter in a proceeding before a court, tribunal or officer created by law, or matter in relation to which an oath is authorized by law, is guilty of perjury and shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than three years nor more than ten years.

There is no statute making a separate crime of subornation of perjury, but Section 6804 of the Revised Statutes reads:

"Whoever aids, abets or procures another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."

So that if any offense is charged here against Walker it is a charge of perjury, and results from his suborning Duncan to knowingly swear falsely.

The sufficiency of the indictment was challenged both by motion to quash and by demurrer, both of which were overruled and the validity of the indictment sustained.

It is here claimed that the court erred in sustaining the indictment, the claim being that in order to make the indictment good, as against one who procures another to commit perjury, it must appear from the indictment that the thing sworn to must have been false; that it must have been known to the party