The question in this case is as to the the sufficiency of the indictment, which charges that defendant, at a certain time and place,, within the jurisdiction of this court—

The United States statute defining perjury is as follows:

And section 5396 of the Revised Statutes provides that—

The last section is in substance the same as the enactment of 23 Geo. II. c. 11, which was designed to do away with the needless prolixity and precision required by the statute of 5 Eliz. c. 9, which oftentimes resulted in the escape of those guilty of the crime of perjury. The averments in a case of this character are, as said by Mr. Bishop, necessarily of two classes,-—those which disclose a foundation for the commission of the offense commonly called inducement, and those which charge the offense itself. The latter, being that whereof the defendant is accused, must be direct and specific; but the former may be charged in general terms. 2 Bish. Crim. Proe. § 901 et seq. But, while the matter of inducement may bo generally stated, the allegations respecting it must be sufficient to show that the oath was taken before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, and in a case in which the laws of the United States authorizes the oath to be taken. Where, as in the present case, the false swearing is alleged to have been committed in a matter or proceeding in open court, the allegations must be sufficient to show that the matter or proceeding was one in which the court was competent to act. To hold otherwise would be to hold that false swearing, in a matter or proceeding ■of which the court had no jurisdiction, constitutes perjury, which cannot be affirmed. 2 Bish. Crim. Law, § 1020; 2 Whart. Crim. Law, § 1288 *698 etseq.; 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. §§ 905, 910, and numerous cases cited in the note to the case of State v. Shupe, 85 Amer Dec. 485.

Now, looking at the indictment, it is seen that it charges that at a certain named time and place, within the jurisdiction of this court, the defendant took an oath in the United States district court—which oath was administered to him in open court by E. H. Owen, the duly-appointed, qualified, and acting clerk of said court, and who was then possessed of competent authority to administer it—that in the matter then pending in said court entitled “In the Matter of the Contempt of Thomas J. Cuddy,” he would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then and there willfully, falsely, corruptly, and contrary to such oath, did state certain material matter in his testimony then and there adduced, which is specifically set out in the indictment. The materiality of the testimony is sufficiently alleged, and the allegation falsifying the alleged material matter is also sufficient. I see no force in the suggestion that there is no allegation that defendant swore falsely to a material matter which he did not believe to be true. The allegation is that he willfully and corruptly swore to material matter which he knew to be false. He could not believe to be true that which he knew to be false. If there was nothing further in the indictment to show that the matter in which the alleged false swearing was committed, was one of which the court had jurisdiction, than the allegation that the alleged false testimony was given in a matter then pending in the district court, entitled “In the Matter of the Contempt of Thomas J. Cuddy,” I would be inclined to think the indictment fatally defective; but the indictment does further aver that the laws of the United States authorized said oath to be administered in said matter. Since all of this, as has been seen, is matter of inducement, and may be stated generally, and since the court must have jurisdiction over a matter pending therein in which the laws of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, I am of opinion that the indictment does sufficiently show that the court had jurisdiction of the matter in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed. Demurrer overruled.