Arizona weekly citizen., 1882-04-09
Perjury.

t-' NAA AAAA4AAAaAD ciAAClN may Ue,
 there are comparatively but few of its
 denizens who, Tn open court and under
 oath, have the hardihood to deliberately
 falsify and swear away any little preyious
 good character that he or they may have
 had. But instances of this kind will oc- occasionally occur, more especially in
 large cities, where the cosmopolitan char arcter of its citizens, the diversity of pur- suits and the many influences under which men are called upon to pass their existence, tends to create the characters ID question. Tucson, although not large has one of the homo genius in question. In a case tried before Judge Stilweu. A few days ago, for the purpose of setting aside deed to mining property in the Empire district, given to the character in ] question by man so under the influence of liquor as to be held by judge and jury, before whom the case was tried to be irresponsible, and the deed 10 which he had been wheedled into giving was i declared to be ot To value. The mines had been bonded to the defendant for some SSOOO or in case of but half being taIen the amount would be bali the sum named. But as the defendant was uu- able to market said mines the bond be- came void. About ten days afterwards the complainant happened to be in town, and unfortunately under the influence of liquor, when the defendant, taking advantage Of the mans condition. had hlm make out deed for his half of the properties in question, the deed stating that the consideration was 5000, when Tn reality it was S35 and a gun of De- culiar make of no V Hue to any one. as cartridges cannot be procured other than at the place where the gun was manufactured.
 After the deed had been given, the plaintiff was taken before a notary at eight o'clock that same night, and in hIs drunken condition certified to it, but on sobering up and learning of what had happened, demanded back his deed, and offered to make restitution by re- turning the money and gun, but as it was refused, suit was entered, and on trial the result was as aDove given. !
 When defendant was testifying he added talsehood to his unblushing im- pudence, denying in sum toto all the most important evidence bearing on the case, but afterward, b. documents and letters written by himself his evidence was proven to be grossly false His denial that the com plainant had ever been in his house or that he had been socially intimate with lim was met by thefollowing letter.
 Dear -: found your knife on the ioor of my parlor. and have it with me Or delivery to its rIghtful owner, the irst time We meet, which fondly hope will not be many weeks ahead" And lgain, "On my arrival in town I will i'm nediately write you; on Friday, and and Sunday, and every day . hereafter. Go 10 the Empire store for
 ! etters from me" Many other of simi- ar import could be noted. It was also . proven that the complainant had slept in . he defendants house, and had been reated with the most cordial familiarity md acknowledged as a friend, in the lope of swindling the man out of hls lard-earned property; and what sets the 'erjurer in a still more damning light Is hat he once hung out his shingle as a ' eacher of divine truths, and is said to ct occasionally indulge in that direc- ion. Judge Stilwell charged the jury 1 n five different counts, in each Of which verdict was given against the defend mt.