People v. Paden

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of a felony, to wit, perjury.

The first attack is upon the sufficiency of the indictment. It charges that the offense was committed by false swearing in an action in which the plaintiff'was the People of

[249]

California and the defendant was Charles Paden, which action was numbered 13,171 of the records of the superior court of the state of California, in and for the city and county of San Francisco, and in which action the defendant therein was charged with a felony, to wit, obtaining money under false pretenses. Appellant’s position is that the indictment in the perjury case should have stated that defendant was sworn in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant was charged with “obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses, knowingly and designedly made with intent to defraud,” instead of defining the offense as “obtaining money under false pretenses.” The objection is without merit. The ease of

People

v.

Ah Bean,

77 Cal. 12 [18 Pac. 815], considers an indictment for perjury under the provisions of section 966 of the Penal Code, and holds that the designation by name of the action involving the controversy with respect to which the perjury was committed is sufficient, the court saying: “The controversy in respect to which the offense was committed in this case was the case of

People

v.

Marline.”

To the same effect are the cases of

People

v.

DeCarlo,

124 Cal. 462 [57 Pac. 383], and

People

v.

Carpenter,