Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-08-01
NO. 36

stood or more universally acknowledge
ed than any other it is this: That no
man can be convicted of perjury unless
upon the oaths of at least two witness
es showing clearly the falsehood of the
oaths upon which perjury is assigned
A single witness, however credible, is
as useless to the prosecution as none at
all. This is not only the established
and intleXible rule, but is founded in a
principle and a policy which are neces-
sary to the common safety of all men.
Our system of Jurisprudence would not
be respectable without it. When two
opposing parties swear differently in
the subject matter of a judicial contro-
versy between them, if one can main-
tain prosecution for perjury the other
can have, and ought to have, the same
privilege. If Smith goes to the peni-
tentiary because in his recollection
about the state of their dealings he
differs from Wolford, why should VOL
ford not go along with him because he
differs from Smith IfSmith is rightly
and legally found guilty on Wolford's
testimony, why can he not turn at this
moment upon Wolford and prosecute
him for the same offence If cross
prosecutions were instituted and tried
together, one of the parties would be
in just as much peril as the other upon
the evidence given in this case.
L speak with perfect confidence when
| say that the counsel for the prosecu-
tion did not, and do not now believe
that the evidence they gave of Smiths
outside conversation was equivalent to
the direct testimony of another wit
ness. For this confidence, haye two
good reasons. In the first place it is
an absurdity which they could not be-
lieve in. Secondly, they did not offer
it as proof of guilt, but for the mere
purpose of discreditiDg the testimony
which Smith gave in his own behalf
Knowing that this latter was the only
purpose it would lawfully serve, they
did not produce it in chief, but waited
until the defence was closed and then
gave 1t as part of their rebutting evil
dence.
do not say that where an indict-
ment for perjury is sustained by the
positive testimony of one witness, the
want of another may not be supplied
by proof of collateral facts which show
that the accused party must necessari-
ly be guilty. But such facts should be
so absolutely inconsistent with his inno-
cence that the prosecution could no
more spare them out of the case than it
could dispense with the one witness
who testifies directly to his guilt
Mere moral circumstances which tend
only to lower the defendants character
or to involve him in discreditable con-
tradictions are plainly not enough No
matter what the reputation of the de-
fendant may be or how much his testi-
mony may be damaged by cross-oxam-
ination, he still counts as one witness
on his own side and he can be over
balanced by not less than two against
him.
In all this l must not be understood
as admitting that there was in fact any
discrepancy between his conversations
and his testimony. l have good reason
to believe that the testimony of Thomp-
son and Jamison makes out nothing of
this kind; and | take it for granted
that in case of this magnitude. the
court will look carefully into every part
of the evidence which it thinks of any
moment.
The sum of all that can be said about
this part of the case is, that the oath on
NH btnh bn 1nfa Of
perjury was neither material nor false.
1t would be scandal to the admins
tration of justice, if any court in this
commonwealth would, under such cir
cumstances, pluck down the hideous
| ruin of a sentence for perjury upon the
head of man whose neighbors focked
around him by scores to prove his un-
blemished character. Can this ever be
done ? Certainly not on the testimony
ofa single witness who swears to the
falsity of a statement which is wholly
immaterial
On the question about the figure
in the judgment note, | have no time
to speak, and it is not necessary If
the defendant gets new trial on the
point already discussed, he will have
what he needs; if not, it is useless now
to talk about anyth ng in the case.
But ought to say that if it were
worth while ! could show from the face
of the paper itself that Smiths recol-
lection is the true one. The figure 5
was not there when he signed it.
j. S. BLACK,
Nav 1909