Edison v. CommonwealthEdison v. Commonwealth
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Clay
.Appellant was indicted for false swearing, and upon conviсtion was sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. On this appeal he contends that: (1) the testimony of a witness was inсompetent; and (2) he should have had a directed verdict- оf acquittal..
- -In the execution of a bail bond, appellant Rad signed an affidavit to the effect that he was the owner of real estate of the value of $11,000. He had listed a 12 acre farm and a house and lot in Franklin. There were only two witnesses fоr the Commonwealth.- The first was the circuit court clerk who had tаken the bond. He did not testify concerning the value of apрellant’s property. The other witness was the county tax cоmmissioner. His records disclosed thát’ appellants house and lot had been assessed at $1,616. From personal knowledge of this рroperty, he testified that it had a fair marketable value оf $2,250. With -respect to the farm, he stated that in his opinion it had a fair marketable value of $425. It is not clear from his testimony how well аcquainted he was with the farm property. He said he had not personally examined it, but had come by it on several ocсasions. He stated the assessment showed that there were nо improvements on the property.
Appellant argues that in effect the county tax commissioner was simply testifying as to the assessed valuation of the real estate, and because he had not examined either the town house or the farm рroperty he was not a competent witness with respect to valuation. It appears, however, that the tax commissioner was qualified as an expert on real estate vаlues and that he -did have some familiarity with both pieces of рroperty, in which appellant had an interest. However, his evidence ,was not of the strongest character. ’
The rule in Kеntucky is that to convict of false swearing there must be the testimony of-at least two witnesses or one witness and strong corroborating circumstances. Capps v. Commonwealth, 294 Ky. 743, 172 S.W.2d 610. It was held in Botner v. Commonwealth, 219 Ky. 272, 292 S.W. 805, that in proving thе value of real estate the testimony of one witness corroborated by.the assessment lists is not sufficient-. The Commonwealth аrgues that the corroborat,ing evidence consisted of an admission by appellant that he was not the • fee simple оwner of the -farm; that he swore falsely when he stated there wеre no other mortgage or other liens on the property; and that he had falsely stated to the tax-as*589sessor that there were no improvements on the farm.
Appellant аnd’ other witnesses testified the property did have a value of $11,-000. It thus appears that the principal question involved was bаsed upon the opinions of persons with respect to the value of the property. It may be that appellant exaggerated its value and that he was careless in making statements with respect to the nature of his ownership and the othеr matters relied on by the Commonwealth. However, we do not think the evidence for the Commonwealth was sufficient to prove that appellant knowingly and willfully swore falsely in the affidavit, and a verdict of acquittal should have been directed.
The judgment is reversed, with directions to grant appellant a new trial.