People v. Howard

Van Fleet, J. Defendant -was convicted of perjury in the superior court of the comity of Los Angeles, and [657]appeals from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial.

Upon his arraignment defendant moved to set aside the information, upon the ground that he had not been legally committed by a magistrate. The motion was denied, and its denial is the basis of one of the excep„ tions upon which defendant relies for a reversal of the judgment.

The complaint lodged with the magistrate, upon which the prosecution is founded, attempted to charge defendant with having, on October 25, 1894, at the citjr of Pasadena, in said county, committed perjury before one J. G. Eossiter, the recorder of said city, in falsely swearing to a criminal complaint charging one Howard with a misdemeanor in disturbing a religious meeting. The material part of the complaint, after alleging the taking of the oath, the official character of the officer before whom the same was taken, and his competency to administer such oath, is: u That said defendant did then and there willfully, and contrary to said oath, state as true that this affiant did, on the seventh day of October, 1894, disturb and disquiet an assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noisy, rude, and indecent behavior,” etc., the truth of the statement being then negatived.

Upon this complaint defendant was examined and held to answer for the crime of perjury, and thereupon the district attorney filed the information in question, charging defendant with such offense.

It is urged on behalf of defendant that this complaint did not charge a public offense; and did not for that reason constitute a legal basis for a prosecution against defendant, or upon which he could he competently held to answer. The particular objection pointed out as rendering the complaint deficient is its failure to show that the recorder before whom the alleged false oath was taken had any jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action in which the oath was taken; that is, that while the averments of the complaint show that the oath was [658]taken in a criminal prosecution against said Howard before the recorder of said city for misdemeanor, it is not alleged, directly or otherwise, that the said misdemeanor was committed within the city of Pasadena, and so within the jurisdiction of said recorder. And it is claimed that, unless it affirmatively appear that the false oath was taken in a case -whereof the recorder had jurisdiction, the matters sworn to are not material, and do not constitute perjury.