oath, so that a prosecution for perjury can be predicated thereon. O'Reilly v. People, 86 N. Y. 154.

Not necessary, in order to constitute perjury, that the false affidavit of verification relied upon to sustain the charge shall itself state the facts which are sworn to, but they may be stated in the report or pleading to which the affidavit is attached. People v. Ostrander, 64 Hun, 335.

The want of a signature to the affidavit is not material, the signature being no part of the affidavit, but merely authenticating it. Commonwealth v. Carell, 105 Mass. 582.

It is perjury, under section 96 of the Penal Code (Penal Law, 1620), for a witness to testify falsely that he does not remember what occurred in connection with the criminal transaction for which an indictment has been had, where he well knows and remembers facts in regard to the same which are material in determining the guilty or innocence of the accused. People v. Doody, 16 N. Y. Crim. 466.

A surety on a bail bond who falsely states in his affidavit of qualification and on his examination under oath before the magistrate that he owns specific real estate of a certain value is guilty of perjury. The sufficiency of a surety is a subject of judicial inquiry and the false statements aforesaid are material to the issue. People v. Davis, 21 N. Y. Crim. 573.

It is not perjury for an officer of a corporation to testify that a bank account standing in his own name was his individual account, although in fact it was held in trust for the corporation, for the relation of debtor and creditor existed between him and the bank. But even if such testimony be misleading the defect is cured where the witness immediately supplements his statement by telling the whole truth with reference to the account and the sources from which the fund came. People v. Gillette, 22 N. Y. Crim. 400.

The provisions of chapter 300 of the laws of 1909, which added to the insurance law a new section to be designated as section 63, was intended to extend the jurisdiction of the superintendent of insurance to insurance corporations of every character, and by implication, to authorize him to examine the affairs and question under oath the officers of any fraternal beneficiary society or town and county co-operative insurance corporation, notwithstanding section 57 of the insurance law which had theretofore exempted such societies and corporations from such examinations; and the false swearing of any officer or any such society or corporation on any such examination, upon a subject material thereto, constitutes perjury. People v. Reed, 25 N. Y. Crim. 24.

ELEMENTS OF CRIME IN PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS.

Perjury by a witness examined on preliminary hearing in a criminal case. People v. Collins, 57 App. Div. 257.

When oath is not wilfully or corruptly false. Dempsey v. People, 20 Hun, 261.

When deposition states facts from which it may be inferred that the false testimony was wilfully and knowingly given. Krauskopf v. Tallman, 38 App. Div. 273.

False statements in an account verified by the jailor may constitute perjury. People v. Bowe, 34 Hun, 528.

Erasure of signature of subscribing witness to a deed, and procuring the recording of the instrument by falsely swearing to be the subscribing witness constitutes perjury. Tuttle v. People, 36 N. Y. 431.

Perjury in verification of an answer. People v. Christopher, 4 Hun, 805.

INDICTMENT.

In an indictment for perjury it is sufficient to allege the substantial and specific facts constituting the offense, without setting forth the evidence by which the truth of the averments has to be sustained. Tuttle v. People, 36 N. Y. 431.

Whether the witness was subpoenaed or appeared voluntarily need not appear from the indictment. Commonwealth v. Knight, 12 Mass. 274.

Where the oath itself constitutes a charge of felony, there need be no further allegation that the oath was taken in a judicial proceeding. People v. Robertson, 3 Wheeler Crim. 180.

Where the description of the complaint shows that it was a criminal case in which the defendant was alleged to have committed perjury, the indictment need not allege that it was in a criminal case. Commonwealth

v. Wright, 166 Mass. 174.

Held sufficient to allege in general terms that a certain issue was joined in said proceeding without stating the issue, held sufficient, where the indictment by its allegations shows that perjury was committed by the defendant in a judicial proceeding, in a court possessing competent jurisdiction, and describes such judicial proceeding with reasonable certainty. People v. Grimshaw, 33 Hun, 505.

Held no necessity of setting forth in the indictment in express terms that the court had jurisdiction of the case in which the alleged false testimony was given. Burns v. People, 59 Barb. 531.

It is not necessary, even in an indictment for perjury committed before an inferior court, to set out all the facts to show its jurisdiction; and it is sufficient to aver that it had authority to administer the oath. Much less is so great a degree of exactness required when the averment relates to a court of general jurisdiction. Eighmy v. People, 79 N. Y. 546.

If an indictment for perjury before a ministerial officer charges that he was authorized to administer the oath, it need not allege the facts showing his jurisdiction. People v. Tredway, 3 Barb. 470.

Not necessary to set out the exact language used by the defendant on the occasion of the alleged perjury, but it is sufficient to allege the substance and effect thereof. People v. Ostrander, 64 Hun, 335.

Where the oath is set forth in the indictment "in substance and to the effect following" an exact recital is not necessary. People v. Warner, 5 Wend. 271.

Such parts of the oath as are alleged to be false and material are all that need be set out, and there is no necessity of setting out the whole oath. Campbell v. State, 8 Wend. 636.

Averments of facts held insufficient to show materiality. People v. Root, 94 App. Div. 84.

An indictment for perjury in making a false affidavit for the purpose of obtaining an audit of an unliquidated claim against a city that does not aver that the affidavit was authorized by the charter of the city, or that it was made for the purpose required thereby, or that the claim to which it was appended was ever presented to the common council for audit, is fatally defective. Ortner v. People, 4 Hun, 423.

A complaint for perjury simply stating that “material facts" as sworn to were false, without stating what facts, is defective. Matter of Rothacker, 11 Abb. New Cas. 122.

Variances held not material. People v. Burroughs, 1 Park. Crim. 211. Indictment charging the making of a false affidavit, need not allege the delivery of the same. People v. Williams, 149 N. Y. 1.

An information which shows that relator had sworn to one state of facts, and complainant sworn that he thereby swore falsely, and there were no supporting witnesses and no suggestion of corroborating circumstances does not present legal evidence justifying the magistrate in issuing a warrant for perjury People ex rel. Jacobs v. McGirr, 17 N. Y. Crim. 173; People v. Martin, 17 Id. 150.

One who testifies falsely before a grand jury to facts material to the subject of their inquiry does not escape the crime of perjury by reason of the presence in the grand jury room of one who is not permitted by law to be present. People v. Glasser, 22 N. Y. Crim. 568.

Section 291, Code of Criminal Procedure, governing indictments for perjury does not dispense with the necessity of identifying the particular matter in respect to which the crime of perjury was committed and when it is alleged that it was committed before a grand jury, then the indictment must not only charge the perjury, but must also specifically state the subject which was being investigated. People v. Gilette, 22 N. Y. Crim. 400.

An indictment for giving perjured testimony before a grand jury which merely alleges that the investigation was for the purpose, among other things, "of ascertaining whether officers or employees of any description of life insurance companies in this state have lately violated

the criminal laws of the state," is insufficient to sustain a conviction of an officer of such corporation who was compelled to testify under oath, because the particular crime under investigation is not stated. People v. Gilette, 22 N. Y. Crim. 400.

In an indictment for perjury, it is not enough to allege that the defendant falsely testified to the matter set forth; but the indictment should state directly and specifically wherein the matter was false. People v. Tatum, 22 N. Y. Crim. 557.

An indictment for perjury, which charges that upon such special investigation it became material whether the defendant, who had been duly sworn by one of the commissioners, ever received any money from one E. the proprietor of a common show in that portion of the city of New York commonly called Jamaica; that defendant falsely swore that he never had received any money from said E., whereas in truth and in fact, defendant had collected and received from said E. certain sums mentioned in the indictment at times therein stated and that such testimony was wilfully false, is demurrable upon the ground that the alleged false testimony was not material to the subject matter of the inquiry in question. People v. Tillman, 23 N. Y. Crim. 401.

An indictment for perjury in giving false testimony need not set forth the facts upon which the materiality of the evidence depends; it is sufficient if it charges generally that the evidence was material. People v. Tillman, 25 N. Y. Crim, 32.

NECESSITY OF MATERIALITY OF TESTIMONY.

False testimony is deemed material when it is pertinent to the main issue. People v. Doody, 172 N. Y. 165.

In a proceeding before a deputy state superintendent of elections to determine the validity of the registration of electors, a false statement as to the residence of such electors is a material false statement as to a pertinent matter, falling within the provisions of section 7, chapter 689 of the laws of 1905, making it a felony to take a false oath before such an officer. People v. Ellenbogen, 114 App. Div. 182.

Held sufficient if the testimony be circumstantially material. Wood v. People, 59 N. Y. 117.

Though the testimony is not of itself sufficient to establish the main issue, if it is circumstantially material, it is perjury. Commonwealth v. Pollard, 12 Metcalf (Mass.) 225.

Reference should be had to the issue as it existed at the time the oath was administered to the witness, to make a proper test of the materiality of the testimony alleged to be false. Bullock v. Coon, 4 Wend. 531.

Although the case may fail from defect of proof as to other facts at issue, and although the other fact alleged may have had no existence, a person who swears falsely as to any fact relevant to the issue, is guilty of perjury. Wood v. People, 59 N. Y. 117.

False testimony tending to either aggravate or mitigate the damages in an action is material and constitutes perjury. People v. Courtney, 94 N. Y. 490.

A false answer of a witness stating that he has never been convicted of a felony affects his credibility as a witness, and is therefore material, and a charge of perjury may be predicated thereon. People v. Link, 4 N. Y. Supp. 436, 6 N. Y. Crim. 185.

A witness whose testimony is incompetent may be held guilty of perjury, if the opposing party waives objections to such incompetency. Chamberlain v. People, 23 N. Y. 85.

Witness's knowledge of materiality of his testimony not necessary. Penal Law, section 1624.

MATERIALITY.

In an indictment for perjury committed upon the examination of the defendant before the grand jury the indictment must so specify the sub