Error is brought on a conviction of perjury, the only error assigned relating tо the sufficiency of the information. An error assigned on the want of an assignment and plea turns out to be ill-founded.
The perjury is alleged to have been committed on a criminal examination, and it is claimed it does not sufficiently appear that such an examination was legally hаd. It does appear very explicitly that the perjury was committed on the examination of one George Silsby, at a court held by Edmund S. Tracy, a justice of the peace at Charlotte, Eaton county, on the 18th day of March, 1875, the said Silsby being charged before such court, on rеspondent’s complaint on behalf of the people, with the offense of forgery, which examination came on to be heard in due form *of law, and was then heard and tried, and Flint then and there appeared as a witness on behalf of the people, and was sworn touching the matter in controversy, etc.
The allegations are very full, аnd, as we think, sufficient to identify the court and the oecassion as constituting such a tribunal and hearing as would render false swearing perjury within the law. Our statute (C. I., § 7918) provides that in
The present information fully complies with these requirements, and is in that resjiеct entirely correct.
It is claimed, however, that there is no sufficiеnt allegation ■of materiality.
The old precedents, which set out аt length the issues con•cerning which the false swearing was had, were very prolix, and were designed to enable the criminal court to determinе materiality from the comparison of the testimony with the ¡issue, where it wаs possible to do so. In modern times the more correct rules of pleading have substituted allegations of materiality to the issue on trial. The courts have been careful to require this materiality to apрear by plain allegation, and where it is not apparent, the information or indictment has been held bad. It is enough, however, to show by allegation that the testimony was material to the actual issue in contrоversy. The case of People v. Collier, 1 Mich. R., 137, discussed this subject, and while holding the charge in that instance defective, said that the proper form was the onе used in the case before us.
This information alleges “ that it then and therе, upon said examination, became a material question whether” certain facts set forth were true, and then declares, repеating them, that they were sworn to by Flint and were false, *adding the necessаry averments which render false swearing perjury.
The form used here is the precise form laid down as correct by Archbold, Wharton and Bishop. — Arch. Cr. PI. So Ev., 573; 2 Bish. Cr. Pr., § 907; Wharton Cr. L., § 2263.
We think that this was sufficient, and that the allegation was not ambiguous. There is аpparently a large amount of matter which was probably surplusаge, but the fact that there is false testimony which may not have been important will not
The judgment is not erroneous, and must be affirmed.