The New York herald., 1922-05-07
By-wM. McMURTRIE sPEER.

ByWM. McM URTRIE SPEER.
Perjury is one of the most frequent
crimes. Every judge knows many in
stances. In the criminal courts wit
nesses testify falsely every day. In
the civil courts perjury has become
almost casual and is frequently COM
mented on by the judges and in the
opinions of the court
Yet there is seldom an indictment
and a conviction for perjury. In pro-
portion to the number of offenses it
has a very low percentage of con-
victions. For this there are two prin-
cipal reasons; one the fact that rarely
is there a complainant, and for a Sec
ond reason conviction is difficult be-
cause the proof is so technical.
A conviction like that of Gussie
Human Is most unusual Miss HUI
mann had aided Joseph Libasci. the
father of her unborn child, in murder
ing Harry Garbe, her first lover On
her trial for murder she was acquitted.
as is the custom of men juries when
woman kills a man with whom she
has had improper relations. On Lii
bascis trial she testified falsely for the
defense and her testimony persuaded
several of the jurymen to vote for
Libasci's acquittal and cansed dis
agreement of the jury. Later Libasci
pleaded guilty to a lesser, degree OF
murder and escaped the electric chair,
Conviction a Surprise.
Then Miss Human was indicted for
her perjury at Libasci's trial, and, 10
everybody's surprise, the jury found
her guilty. After her conviction she
confessed to Justice Lewis and was
sentenced to not less than seven years
and six months nor more than fifteen
years at Auburn Prison. This impris-
onment can be reduced by good be-
havior, but added to the imprisonment
will be the fact that her baby will be
taken away from her after it's birth,
since babies are not allowed in State
prisons.
The maximum penalty for such per-
Jury as Miss Humann's is twenty
years in States prison, because her
perjury was committed on the trial OF
an indictment for felony. The maxi
mum penalty for any other kind OF
perjury is ten years.
To the ordinary man perjury means
telling a lie under oath. But it re-
quires a great deal more than that a
man told an untruth under oath to
convict him of perjury.
There is a vast difference between
the language of the ninth command
ment, Thou shalt not bear false wit
ness against thy neighbor," and the
definition of perjury as given in Sec
ton 1920 of the penal law.
What the Penal Code Says.
This section is drawn with great
elaboration, and reads as follows: "a
person who swears or affirms that he
will truly testify, declare, depose or
certify. or that any testimony, dec
laration, deposition, certificate, affi-
davit or other writing by him sub
scribed Is true in an action, or a spe-
cial proceeding, or upon any hearing
or inquiry. or on any occasion in which
an oath is required by law, or is neces-
sary for the prosecution or defense of
a private right or for the ends OF pub
lie justice. or may lawfully be admin
istered, and who in such action or pro-
ceeding, or on such hearing, inquiry
or other occasion willfully and know
ingly testifies. declares, deposes or
certifies falsely In any material mat
ter, or states in his testimony, declara-
tion, deposition, affidavit or certificate
any material matter to f5e true which
he knows to be false, Is guilty of per-
jury"
There are scores OF decisions as to
what does and does not constitute per-
jury. OF course the man must be
sworn or affirmed. 1t is not neces-
sary for him to be Sworn by laying
his hand upon the Gospels" (section
1929. Neither is IL defense that "the
oath was administered or taken in ir-
regular manner" (section 1921. But IL
must be an occasion when an oath
may be lawfully administered. AS to
just what this means there are many
decisions.
May Plead m Mistake.
Then the accused must have acted
"willfully." That involves the question
of intent, as to which there are in
teresting and valuable decisions. He
must also have testified knowingly
which Is a loophole through which
some perjurers escape on the ground
that there was a mistake or that they
did not understand the question, or
that they had not carefully read the
paper they signed, or that they did not
understand it's purport, as to all of
which there are more decisions and
opinions.
or course the testimony must be
false or there could be no perjury.
If tho man intended TO commit perjury
and believed he was lying. but in fact
told the truth. he is not guilty. He
may have had the intent, but the in
tent alone is not enough
A big loophole is that the testimony
must be material" AS TO what is
material there is a vast difference Of