The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1894-06-21
THE COURTS OPINION.
How Mr.. Justice CAVITY Sized Up
Madigan's Case.

The opinion of the Supreme Court
in the Madigan case, the syllabus of
which was given last week, is as fol-
lows:
The defendant was indicted by the grand
jury uof Redwood county and charged with
the crime of perjury in making an affdavit
for attachment in a case entitled Peter N.
Romnes against Halver T. Helgeson and Ole
H. Mogan, commenced in the district court
of that county, and in which affidavit it is
charged he deposed that he is the attorney
of that plaintiff and that cause of action
exists in favor of plaintiff and against de-
PENDANTS the the amount of which is $500,
and the ground of that claim is a promissory
note executed and delivered by defendants
to plaintiff for that sum, of which note
plaintiff is the holder The defendant was
convicted and sentenced, and appeals to this
Court.
/. The first point made by appellant is that
the indictment does not state facts sufficient
to constitute public offense, because it does
not allege that he was an attorney at-law
when he made this afidavit: that no one but
the plaintiff, his agent or attorney is author
lied by statute to make such an afidavit and
that if he was not authorized by statute to
make the affidavit it was not perjury to make
it, This amounts to the proposition that the
afidavit might be too false to be perjury,
that his swearing falsely that he is the at
torney of the plaintiff is not perjury be-
cause it might also be false statement that
that he is an attorney at all.
This is not like the case of U. s. VS. Grot-
kau, 3OuFed. Rep, 672 cited by appellant.
where it afirmatively appeared on the face
of the proceedings in which the af1davit was
made that the person making it was prohib-
tied by statute from doing so. Here it was
made to appear by the alleged false state
ment itself which is part of the afadavit
that he was authorized to make that afidavit
and nothing appeared to the contrary in the
attachment action or proceedings. The
point is not well taken.
2. While the statute requires the afidavit
for attachment to be made by the plaintiff,
his agent or attorney, it does not require the
afidavit to state that the person making it is
such agent or attorney when made by him.
It is contended by appellant that therefore
the statement in the afidavit that he was
attorney for the plaintiff Romnes was i'm
material and perjury cannot be predicated
upon it. It does not necessarily follow that
this statement was immaterial because not
required to be stated in the af1davit. The
statement was of "a material fact which it
was necessary to make appear afirmatively
somewhere in the proceedings before writ
of attachment could rightfully issue and it
was proper to make it appear in this afddavit.
Even if it appeared elsewhere it might also
appear in the afidavit as corroborative evil
dence of the fact and in such case also it
would be material.
8. While the indictment alleges that the
afidavit is material there is no formal aver
ment that the parts of the anndavits assigned
as perjury as aforesaid are material and it
is contended that for this reason the indict-
ment is bad. Such formal averment is not
necessary when it appears from the facts
set out in the Indictment that the matter as
signed as perjury is material. 1t does 80 ap-
pear in this case. The indictment sets out
the afadavit at length and AYERS that it was
made for the purpose of procuring an order