Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1873-08-23
Concerning Perjury,

deit. testified falsely that certain promisso-
ry note IN suit against him in favor of Luther
Whitman, at last October term of the court,
was simply an accommodation note to enable
Whitman 10 raise money, and was not given
for value actually received. We give Judge
Cuttings charge in full, for the better infor-
nation of the public in regard to the crime
of perjury, and the law touching it,.
/, Gentlemen Of the Jury:
The respondent stands charged with the
crime of perjury, which is one of the greatest
| offences in the calendar of criminal law, and
justly SO. In the first place, when wit
| ness is put upon the stand he takes a solemn
| declaration that he will testify to ''the truth,
| the whole truth, ard nothing but the truth, "
and he calls upon the Almighty for assistance
to aid him in SO doing SO you will perceive
| the sol, mn situation in which all witnesses are
| placed under such circumstances. Perjury is a
violation of the moral law, as well as the crimi.
nallaw, and the consequences to society, if per-
mitted to go UNPUBLISHED will be alarming.
All communications and intercourse in BUSH
ness relations between man and man in courts
| of justice, are settled upon the testimony
| Of witnesses, and it is supposed that
| they, when under the sanction Of an oath, will
testify truthfully. II 10 reliance can be
| placed upon testimony, then we might as well
| close all court houses and abolish all courts
! of justice, and society would be reduced back
| to Its original elements and the savage state
and the one who is the strongest would pre-
vail over the weaker, the same as the animals
which now roam the forests.
Gentlemen, the charge being so grave, it
requires testimony to prove it, and such testi-
| mony as is reliable. The defendant stands in
| that situation. He is so charged, and it is in
cumbent upon the government to satisfy you
beyond Il reasonable doubt; if there is q Tea-
sonable doubt, whatever your suspicious may
be, still that doubt goes to his acquittal.
Now what is the charge that you are to con-
slider; in the first place 1t is said that the re-
spondent, at certain time, in Monmouth, in
| negotiation with Mr.. Whitman, entered into
an arrangement by which he agreed at that
place to give his note absolutely, uncondition-
ally, aud that that was subsequently carried
out at their meeting the next day, at Winthrop,
| at Mr.. Kempton's office, and that there was
an absolute note given and there was no con
diton attached to it.
Now in a case tried here last Dec, it was
said the note thus given was in suit against
the respondent. brought by the payee, Mr..
Whitman. and the record OF that suit has been
read. But will here remark, gentlemen,
that so far as regards the verdict in that case,
you have nothing TO do with it, | should not
nave permitted the record to be read, only it
was necessary to show that such case as is
d Scrbed in the indictment was pending, and
III which case the respondent testified. Be-
cause the testimony before that jury you are
not presumed to know anything about, nor
the mode, nor manner in which it was man
aged. 1t IS altogether foreign 10 the issue
now before you, so you viii leave those pro-
ceedings in that civil suit on. of the case, and
regard 1t no further than is necessary to show
that there was suit pending in court, and
that the respondent was witness in that suit.
Now it is charged substantially, that on
that occasion, he testified that lie gave note
for S4J4, payable in four months to Luther
Whitman, and, that he further stated that it
was conditional note; that provided there
was a reference had in relation to the manu-
tacture OF certain FORKS, and it was decided
that the contract on the part of Mr.. Whitman
had been completed, and complied with, then
he was to take up the note. If it had not been
complied with, then Mr.. Whitman was to pay
1t, and therefore he considered it an accom-
mediation note. Ii he states the facts truly
It would, in one sense, be an accommodation
note, depending upon the contingency of
what would be the award OF the referees.
Then the great question is, was it an absolute
note, payable to Mr.. Whitman, without any
testified to by .he respondent: That appears
10 be the issue before you, substantially.
Now man may swear falsely, and still not
be guilty Of perjury. That is, he may swear
under mistake; he may suppose that he is
swearing truthtully, as you may readily con-
ceive. People sometimes swear, or make
statements, and it turns out afterward, that
they are mistaken they concede it them
selves, but at the time, they are conscientious,
and think they are stating the facts, therefore
that would be false, but still it would not be
perjury. In order to commit the crime Of
perjury, there must be knowledge OF the
tact, that he is swearing falsely, and he must
design to talsify for the purpose of his own
benefit, or for the benefit of some other indi-
vidual.
Well, gentlemen, if that statement was
false on the part of the respondent, was it de-
signedly so, or did he testify under mistake
Let US look at the evidence. and first to the
testimony on the part of the government.
And | will here remark that you have the
whole testimony which he gave in that trial
the reporter on that occasion has read his
testimony IN crtenSo. Now the government
has introduced Mr.. Whitman, and he sub
stantially sw ears that there was no condition
that the note was given to him absolutely.
And Mr.. kempton, who wrote the note and
the reference, understood it was given abso-
lutely. He testif2s that the respondent want
cd the reference before the note matured, so
that what he recovered should help pay the
note; he also testfes that he asked the re-
spondent whether he would offset the refer
ence against the note, and he stated that he
would. Then there is Mr.. Clough, who
states that the respondent said to him that he
had given his note to fulfil his part Of the con-
tract, and he should proceed against Whit
man for lis not filing his part of the contract
Then there is Donnell; the respondent, he
says, told him Whitman wanted his pay, ana
he said he gave him his note to square up the
balance due on the forks, on condition of his
referring the question Of damages. Then
that the respondent subsequently said to him,
some three or six months afterwards, that the |
note was given as an accommodation note.
That is substantially the testimony which has
been disclosed to you on the part of the gov
eminent, in order to sustain this charge.
Now you will see that this testimony relates
to the admissions of the respondent, and the
law upon that subject is as stated by the coun-
sci Mr.. Baker for the respondent, that it is
testimony which requires good deal of scru-
tiny. That is to say, in the first place you
must be satisfied that the person who made |