But it has been held that the indictment need not aver jurisdiction of the case in which the perjury was committed; Com. v. Hatfield, 107 Mass. 227; State v. Newton, 1 G. Greene (Iowa) 160, 48 Am. Dec. 367. And generally there need be no averment as to how the authority of the officer or juris diction was acquired; 6 B. & C. 102; Eighmy v. People, 79 N. Y. 546; State v. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49, 53 Am. Dec. 270; only a general allegation of jurisdiction is required; Stafer v. State, 3 W. Va. 689.
Where a defect in the proceedings is waiv ed, perjury may be committed; Maynard v. People, 135 Ill. 416, 25 N. E. 740. A false affidavit will be perjury where the officer who administered the oath was a minor, in the absence of a statutory disqualification of minors from holding office ; Harkreader v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 243, 33 S. W. 117, 60 Am. St. Rep. 40.
The proceedings must be judicial; Pegram v. Styron, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 595 ; Com. v. War den, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 406 ; Lamden v. State, 5 Humphr. (Tenn.) 83; Waggoner v. Rich mond, Wright (Ohio) 173; R. & R. 459. Proceedings before those who are in any way intrusted with the administration of justice, in respect of any matter regularly before them, are considered as judicial for this pur pose; 2 Russ. Cr. 518. See Arden v. State, 11 Conn. 408; State v. Stephenson, 4 Mc Cord (S. C.) 165. Perjury cannot be com mitted where the matter is not regularly be fore the court ; State v. Alexander, 11 N. C. 182; State v. Wyatt, 3 N. C. 56; State v. Hayward, 1 N. & M'C. (S. C.) 546; Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 407; State v. Keene, 26 Me. 33 ; State v. Hall, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 25; 5 B. & Ald. 634. An oath not administered pursuant to, or required or au thorized by, any law, cannot be made the basis of a charge of perjury; State v. Mc Carthy, 41 Minn. 59, 42 N. W. 599.
The assertion must be absolute. If a man, however, swears that he believes that to be true which he knows to be false, it will be perjury ; 10 Q. B. 670; Corn. v. Cornish, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 249. It is immaterial whether the testimony is given in answer to a ques tion or voluntarily ; State v. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49, 53 Am. Dec. 270; Com. v. Pollard, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 225. Perjury cannot be as signed upon the valuation, under oath, of a jewel or other thing the value of which con sists in estimation; 1 Kehl. 510. But in some cases a false statement of opinion may become perjury ; 10 Q. B. 670; Fergus v. Hoard, 15 I11. 357; State v. Lea, 3 Ala. 602; Com. v. Edison (Ky.) 9 S. W. 161.
The oath must be material to the question depending; 1 Term 63 ; Corn. v. Knight, 12
Mass. 274, 7 Am. Dec. 72; White v. State, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 149; Steinman v. McWilliams, 6 Pa. 170; State v. Smith, 40 Kan. 631, 20 Pac. 529 ; State v. Lawson, 98 N. C. 759, 4 S. E. 134 ; People v. Perazzo, 64 Cal. 106, 28 Pac. 62. See Gandy v. State, 23 Neb. 436, 36 N. W. 817; State v. Blize, 111 Mo. 464, 20 S. W. 210. Where the facts sworn to are wholly foreign from the pur pose and altogether immaterial to the mat ter in question, the oath does not amount to perjury; 2 Russ. Cr. 521 ; Co. 3d Inst. 167; 8 Ves. 35; Bac. Abr. Perjury (A) ; Hinch v.
State, 2 Mo. 158 ; People v. Ah Sing, 95 Cal. 657, 30 Pac. 796. But all false statements wilfully and corruptly made by a witness as to matters which affect his credit are ma terial; [1895] 1 Q. B. 797; and so is every question on cross-examination which goes to the credit of a witness, as, whether he has been before convicted of felony ; 3 C. & K. 26; 1 C. & M. 655. And see Com. v. Pollard, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 225; Williams v. State, 28 Tex. App. 301, 12 S. W. 1103. False evi dence, whereby, on the trial of a cause, the judge is induced to admit other material evi dence, even though the latter evidence is afterwards withdrawn by counsel, or though it was not legally receivable, is indictable as perjury ; 2 Den. C. C. 302; 3 C. & K. 302.
It is perjury where the witness swears falsely in giving evidence legally inadmis sible, but which becomes material by being introduced in evidence; Meyers v. U. S., 5 Okl. 173, 48 Pac. 186.
The materiality of the false oath is for the court and not for the jury; U. S. v. Singleton, 54 Fed. 488; People v. Lem You, 97 Cal. 224, 32 Pac. 11; Stanley v. U. S., 1 Okl. 336, 33 Pac. 1025.
Formerly it required the testimony of more than one witness to convict one ac cused of perjury ; 4 Bla. Com. 358; 2 Russ. Cr. 1791; but this rule is relaxed so as to perrlit a conviction on the testimony of one witness with corroborating circumstances; U. S. v. Wood, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 440, 10 L. Ed. 527; Corn. v. Butland, 119 Mass. 317; State v. Heed, 57 Mo. 252; Hashagen v. U. S., 169 Fed. 396, 94 C. C. A. 618; even where the statute makes the crime an exception to the requirement of only one witness; State v. Gibbs, 10 Mont. 213, 25 Pac. 289, 10 L. R. A. 749 ; but the corroboration must be strong; Woodbeck v. Keller, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 118; and to a material point; State v. Buie, 43 Tex. 532; though it may be circumstantial ; Hernandez v. State, 18 Tex. App. 134, 51 Am. Rep. 295.