17 Ga. App. 337 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1915
1. The indictment sufficiently sets out that the court in which the alleged false testimony was given by the accused had jurisdiction to try and determine the question then at issue. It distinctly charges that the case in which the alleged false testimony was given was then on trial “in Haralson superior court; ” and the additional recital, “before his honor Price-Edwards, judge of said court,” does not negative the idea that the trial was progressing regularly before a court properly constituted and organized, with both a judge presiding and a jury impanelled. • On the contrary, the presumption of law would be that the court was completely and fully organized for the proper transaction of business within its jurisdiction. The indictment further alleges, “said plea to the jurisdiction being then and there on trial before a jury in said court;” and since but one plea to the jurisdiction is referred to in the indictment, it is apparent that the trial “before a jury in said court” was the trial in Haralson superior court.
2. There is no merit in the ground of the demurrer that the indictment is defective in that it fails to allege by what person or officer having authority to administer “a lawful oath” the oath was administered to the defendant. It is not essential to name the particular person or officer administering the oath, or to precisely define his authority so to do. Whether or not a lawful oath was administered would be a matter of defense at the hearing of the case on its merits. Broadwater v. State, 10 Ga. App. 458 (73 S. E. 623).
3. The indictment sufficiently charges that the testimony alleged to be false was material in determining the question raised by the plea to the jurisdiction of the superior court of Haralson county. From the recitals in the indictment it is apparent how and in what manner the testimony alleged to be false was material in the trial of that issue. It is not essential in such a case that the materiality of testimony should be demonstrated by an argument incorporated in the indictment.
5. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer, as the indictment sufficiently set forth the various elements necessary to make out the crime charged against the accused. In a broad sense, an indictment in which the essential elements of the crime charged are set out with such particularity as will fully apprise the accused of the exact nature of the offense and the manner in which it was committed is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer. The adoption of any rule more narrow would be mere legal trifling, and would preserve no substantial rights to which any man accused of crime is entitled under the law.
Judgment affirmed.