Majority
p. 9Clinton Oyer and Terminer, July 2, 1823. Before Walworth, Circuit Judge, and the County Judges. The People vs. David Hoag.
Headnote
In alleging the commission of perjury, the day laid in the indictment is not material, and the offence may he proved to have been committed on any other day, before or after the time laid.This was an indictment for perjury on an arbitration, on a written submission to arbitrators. The indictment alleged the perjury to have been committed on a particular day in October, 1819, under a videlicet. The written submission, when produced, was dated subsequently to the time when the perjury was, by the indictment, charged to have been committed..
J. Lynde and A. J. Sperry, for the prisoner,
insisted that the day was material, and that the perjury being laid to ha,ve been committed on a day previous to that on which, by the evidence, it appeared the submission was made, the variance was fatal.
J. Palmer, (District Att’y,) and W. Swetland, for the people.
said the day laid in the indictment was not material, and the offence may he proved to have been committed on any other day, before or after that time.
The jury, without leaving the bar, acquitted the prisoner on the merits.