Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Adam Hickman, Jun.
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1822-11
Citations: 2 Va. Cas. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth v. Adam Hickman, Jun.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth v. Adam Hickman, Jun.
Criminal Law — Perjury — Warrant — Variance — Evidence. — In a prosecution for perjury, if the Indictment sets forth that “a warrant for debt due by account for rent,” was sued out by the Defendant, and the warrant given in evidence, shews that the claim was not for rent, but for other things, this is such a variance, that the warrant ought not to be given in evidence.
This was an adjourned Case from the Superior Court of Daw for Harrison county. The record is voluminous, and presents many questions which were adjourned, but as the decision was made upon one point only, that alone will be stated.
The Defendant was indicted for perjury. The Indictment commenced thus : “ The jurors, &c. upon their oath present, that on the 15th October, 1819, at,.&c. a certain warrant for debt, due by account for rent, not exceeding the sum of twenty dollars, regularly sued out by Adam Hickman, Jun. against Joseph Eettro, and duly served upon, said Eettro, and returned before Daniel Mor-, ris and John Reynolds, two Justices of the Peace in and for the county of Harrison, duly-commissioned, qualified, and acting as such,, came on to be tried in due form of Daw, and-was then and there tried by-the said two Justices, &c.” It then proceeds to charge, that-the said Defendant, Hickman, who was Plaintiff in the warrant, was by consent *sworn as a witness ; that, upon the trial, a certain question became material, that is to say, whether he the said Hickman had received, or not, any rent -from the. Defendant, Joseph E'ettro ? And that the said Hickman did then and there falsely, wil-fully, and corruptly depose on his oath, that he the said Hickman never had received any rent from said, Fettro,: and then it charges, that in fact he the'said Hickman- had received rent, &c. and so the said Hickman did falsely, wickedly, wilfully, maliciously, and corruptly commit wilful and corrupt perjury, &c.
At the trial, the Attorney for the Commonwealth produced in evidence a warrant, in the following words ahd figures, to wit: “ Harrison county, to wit: To William R. Mitchell, Constable: You are hereby commanded to summon Joseph Fettro to appear before me, or some other Justice of the Peace, &c. to answer Adam Hickman, Jun. in a plea of debt due by account, not exceeding twenty dollars, and make return, &c.” Also, a judgment in the following words: “ Judgment is granted in favor of the Plaintiff, for five dollars debt, and interest from the — day of-, and 72 cents costs. Given under my hand, this 6th day of November, 1819. D. Morris, J. P.” And an account, in the following words and figures,, to wit: “Joseph Fettro, Dr. To A. Hickman, 1817, Toa mare insured, $5; To flax, $5.”
A verdict was rendered against the Defendant, Hickman, subject to the opinion of the Court, on certain points reserved arid agreed; amongst which the fact above set forth and agreed, was oné.
The Superior Court, amongst many other questions, adjourned the following: 1. Is the introductory part of the Indictment, wherein mention is made of the warrant sued out by Adam Hickman against Joseph Fettro, to be taken as a description of the said warrant by its tenor ? If not, 2. Whether the same may be taken as describing the said warrant by its general import and effect ? Or, 3. Whether that part of the Indictment may be regarded as a description of the said warrant, by the substance thereof, and of the matters to be litigated under it ? And, 4. Is the evidence set out in the record, admissible under the Indictment, and in support of the issue,joined thereon ?

Opinion:
WHITE}, J.
The Court is of opinion, and doth decide, that that part of the said Indictment wherein mention is -'made of the warrant sued out by Adam Hickman against Joseph Fettro, ought to be taken as describing the said warrant by its general import, effect, and substance; and, therefore, that the warrant given in evidence to the jury being variant from the said description, was not admissible evidence under the said Indictment. This being decisive of the Case, it is not de'enied necessary to give an opinion on the other q u estion s'f ad j our.n ed.