United States v. Mau Sing

Citations

• 3 D. Haw. 385

Syllabus

<p>Perjury: Ground of demurrer that “indictment does not aver that the court was acting in an official or judicial capacity,” considered.</p> <p>Same: Ground of demurrer that the “indictment is ambiguous,” considered.</p> <p>Same — Averment as to Vie administration of the oath: An averment of an indictment for perjury, setting forth the court or officer before whom the oath under which the alleged false statement charged as constituting perjury, was taken, and that such court or officer had competent authority to administer the same, without stating whether the oath was administered by such court or officer directly or through an interpreter, is sufficient.</p> <p>Same — Material information: Under an averment of an indictment for perjury, stating that under an investigation of the grand jury of an alleged violation of the laws of the United States, it was a material inquiry whether certain knives of foreign manufacture had been obtained from a party who had paid the duties due thereon or from a party who had not paid the duties due thereon, or whether or not they had been smuggled into the country, an averment that a witness falsely stated under oath in such investigation that he did not know whether or not the said knives had been smuggled, that he had found them, and that he had obtained them from a man at one of the wharves in Honolulu, whose name was to him unknown, all of which he knew was false, avers matter material and pertinent to the investigation then being conducted by the grand jury.</p>