Case ID: iowa_8/html/0138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Woodward, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Iowa v. Seaton.
    Where, on the trial of an indictment for perjury, in which the defendant was charged with falsely and corruptly swearing substantially as follows : That he saw S. give the sum of ten dollars to one B. some time in the latter part of December, 1856, which said S. requested him to pay to one 0., and that he saw said E. pay the money to 0. a few days thereafter, in Baltimore township, in Henry county,” the said E. was called as a witness, and testified that he did not pay the money to said C. “at the said time, between the 25th of December and the 1st of January, but was away out of the county of Henry from Christmas to New Years, or the night previous,” and thereupon the defendant offered to prove, by one J., that he saw said E. in the vicinity of Boyles’ mill, in said county, between Christmas and New Year; and to show, by said witness, circumstances which tended very strongly to impress the fact on his memory, and also fixed the time, which evidence was rejected by the court; Held, That the evidence was admissible, under the circumstances.
    
      
      Appeal from the Henry District Court.
    
    Friday, April 8.
    The defendant was indicted for perjury, upon a matter in which it became a question whether one George Seaton had given ten dollars to-one Peter Ebe, in the county of Henry, in the month of December, 1856, to be by him paid to one Milliken Clark, and whether the said Ebe did so pay it over; upon which the defendant testified that he saw the said G. Seaton give the said sum of money to the said Ebe, some time in the latter part of December, 1856, which said Seaton requested him to pay to said M. Clark, and that he saw said Ebe pay the money to Clark a few days thereafter, in Baltimore township in said county. The bill of exceptions shows, that in the present case, Ebe testified that he did not so pay the money to said Clark, “ at the said time, between, the 25th December, and the first of January, but was away out of the county of Henry, from Christmas to New Years, or the night previous.” The defendant then offered to prove by one Boyles, that he saw said Ebe in the vicinity of Boyles’ mill, in said county, between Christmas and New Years, and to show by the witness, circumstances that tended very strongly to impress the fact on his memory, and also fixed the time; but the court, on'motion, excluded all this testimony, and refused to permit it to be given, for the reason that it was immaterial and irrelevant. The defendant excejited, and assigns this as error.
    
      B. L. B. Clarke, for the appellant.
    
      C. Ben Darwin, for the appellee.
   Woodward, J.

We think it sufficiently apparent from Ebe’s testimony, and the rest of the case, that the question of time and place had arisen, as connected with that of payment, and that the time had narrowed down to the interval between the 25th of December and the first of January ; and in this position of the case, Ebe, by way of an argumentative fact, showing that he could not have paid it, testifies that he was not in the county at that time. The time of the payment would be immaterial, except in the view that the proof showed that defendant fixed the tinm as between the above dates, and the place in Baltimore township, in ITenry county, to which Ebe says he was not in the county within that time. To this again the defendant replies, offering to show that he was in the county, and in that township witliin that time. This was important, both as showing that he was at a place where he might have paid the money, and that he could have done what the defendant has sworn ; and also as impeaching him. If that time did not become important, as above suggested, still, if Ebe had testified positively in relation to it, and could be impeached in his evidence concerning it, this would tend to weaken his testimony, and might induce a j ury to give him less credence on other points.

We think the court erred in excluding the evidence offered by the defendant. As this disposes of the case, and is the most material question made, it is unnecessary to pursue the others.

Judgment reversed.