Ross

People v. Ross

Good Law
103 Cal. 425·1894 Cal. LEXIS 795·37 P. 379
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 26, 1894No 21054California988 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

The information in this case does not state a public offense. The crime with which it seeks to charge defendant is subornation of perjury, and it is well established that to constitute this offense all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury must be stated. (2 Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, secs. 1020, 1021; United States v. Wilcox, 4 Blatchf. 393 ; Coyne v. People, 124 Ill. 17 ; 7 Am. St. Rep. 324 ; United States v. Evans, 2 West Coast Rep., 611 ; United States v. Dennee, 3 Woods, 39 .) In several essentials the information falls short of this requirement. It is lengthy and somewhat confused, and contains much redundant matter and many immaterial recitals and repetitions, but the substance of the charge is that in a contest in the superior court of San Joaquin county, of the will of one Joseph McKenney, deceased, in which Isabella McKenney was contestant, the defendant, Ross, in the interest of said contestant, and for the purpose and end of having her declared and adjudged the widow of said deceased, and entitled to share in his estate, procured one Ida Maud Nicholaus to appear as a witness at the trial, and falsely swear on behalf of said contestant, Isabella…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.