Bartman

People v. Bartman

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 1012·81 Cal. 200·22 P. 592
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 9, 1889No. 20500California406 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of perjury.

The indictment charged, in substance, that one Maggie Farley having been arrested for a misdemeanor, and duly admitted to bail in the sum of three hundred dollars, the defendant procured her discharge from custody by executing and delivering a bail bond to which was appended an affidavit by ’which he made oath that he was a freeholder of the state of California, worth three hundred dollars over and above his debts and liabilities, exclusive of property exempt from execution, and that his property consisted of five lots in block 210, Alameda County; whereas he was not a freeholder, not worth three hundred dollars, and not the owner of said lots.

The only evidence offered at the trial as to what the defendant did swear to in connection with said bail bond was the affidavit itself, which reads as follows:—

No attempt was made to prove that the defendant was not a freeholder, or that he was not worth three hundred dollars at the date of said affidavit, but evidence was offered tending to show that he did not own any part of any block 210 in Alameda County.

To the introduction of this evidence the…

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.