Cain v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Russell, J.
1. The verdict was not, for any reason assigned, erroneous.
2. The admissions of the State’s counsel were not at variance with the allegations in the indictment, and the verdict of guilty was authorized by the evidence.
3. When, in the course of a judicial investigation, an attorney at law, by the authority or permission of the court, administers the oath to a witness, he does so in behalf of the court. Consequently it may properly be alleged in an indictment assigning perjury upon the testimony of such a witness, delivered in a court of inquiry, that the oath was administered by the presiding magistrate.
4. A conviction of the offense of perjury is authorized when the evidence shows that on the prior investigation, the accused testified wilfully, knowingly, absolutely, and falsely, in substance, to the effect alleged in the indictment. It is not necessary that the proof as to the alleged false testimony shall correspond literally with the allegations of the indictment.
5. None of the assignments of error based upon a variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof are sustained by the record.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.