The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-05-13
BUM SET FREE.
He Is Saved by a Techntca1ity.


In the case of William NJ. Bum, Register of
Wills, indicted for sueornaton Of perjury, who de-
prosecution was not begun in time to save it from
the effect OF the statute OF limitations, Judge PaXson
ss ans nnashps g6 e indietments The opnon Which
is very able and interesting, is as folows:-
.. S % D the s %
dant charging him with subornation Of perjury TO these
demurrer and motion to qqash.
law % wss held in Snwealt6 aatehnsop, Par
tTary Doctrine laid down in Com Rqfaer Casey,
may ma take advantage without pleading
Mr. Wharton in his eTscellent Treatise on 1%inal
tage may taken Of the on the or
a % the II
monweah ys Haas p f. s. 49, when t. the 1Ss s
enss charged had been eS%mted more than two years
In the cases under consideration the bills charge the
e hys 6e sn Ss se @ Sa ON Of
day Of March, A. d. 1871 than two yevrs there
In Commonwsalth vs. Nass above cited i was IS held
Of Mne sns M @ ons is be- Computed
from the time true bill is found and not from the time
on he and
seoion SnS for ali misdemeapors perry excepted snail
be brought exhibited within after such felony
y urged for the a Il that the lah S
Abolished ali practical Inference between perjury and
snbornaion Of perjury and that By reason thereof the
tons It is difficult to the this reasoning. 1t
is that both oenses punished alike, but this
| is the case with many other ofenses Perjury
common law is defined to be a crime committed when
lawful oath is administered in judicial proceeding
to who wilfuly absolutely and falsely in
matter material TO the Issue point in question Sab
ornatonef perjury is the oense of procuring another
take such false oath constitutes perjury in the
| principals Black, Com 1856 The defendant is charged
with the latter oense and for that the statutory mta
| tion is two years.
1t has also been suggested that the defendant
| member of the Legislature and by the Constitution
privileged from arrest for all oenses except felony and
breach of the peace until the ed of April 1863 Fhen
that body adjourned If this relied to stop the
running of the statute should have been in the
| bill. But if it had been ayerred it would not have
| availed under the authority OF Graham
VS. the Com p. +. s. 1885, held that the pro
vso meant for escaping and absentng them
selves TO avoid punishment until lapse of time might
able them TO return with mpunity In this is moi
pretended that the defendant not been within the
jurisdiction of this Court and liable to arrest during
nearly the whole of the statutory period and that prose
| cution might have been commenced within that time
This case is too clear for argument The indictment
shows its face that the 0Hease charged com
mitted, II committed at all than TIVE prior x
th finding of the bill and there in saiC
bill OF facts which bring the within the eXcep
tions specified in the statute In such the law in
teposes shield for the protection OF the defendant
| This is too well sett ed TO be questioned.
This view of the renders to consde
the other questions raised the motions referred
| Judgment for the defendant upon the demurrer