SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. The curing another to commit legal perjury, who in consequence of the persuasion takes the oath to which he has been incited. Hawk. Pl. Cr. b. 1, c. 69, s. 10.
To complete the offence, the false oath must be actually taken, and no abortive attempt to solicit will complete crime; 2 Show. 1; Com. v. Douglass, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 241.
But the criminal solicitation to commit per jury, though unsuccessful, is a misdemeanor at common law ; 2 East 17; 1 Hawk. Pl. C. 435 ; 2 Bish. N. Cr. L. § 1197; 26 U. C. Q. B. 297. In fact it has been said : "There ap pears to have been a period in our law when the unsuccessful solicitation was deemed to constitute, without more, the full subornation of perjury ; for as such it and other indict able attempts corruptly to influence a wit ness are treated of in some of the old books." 2 Bish. N. Cr. L. § 1197. In order to consti tute the crime the false swearing procured must be itself perjury ; State v. Wymberly, 40 La. Ann. 460, 4 South. 161. As to what constitutes perjury, see that title. An at tempt at subornation of perjury may be shown in evidence at the trial of the cause to which the attempt relates against the guilty party. So also concealment of facts or docu
ments such as a will, accounts, etc., which were in the power of the party to produce and which presumably he would produce; McHugh v. McHugh, 186 Pa. 197, 40 Atl. 410, 41 L. R. A. 805, 65 Am. St. Rep. 849; L. R. 5 Q. B. 314, approved HaStings v. Stetson, 130 Mass. 76. See Chicago City R. Co. v. Mc Mahon, 103 Ill. 485, 42 Am. Rep. 29 ; Snell v. Bray, 56 Wis. 156, 14 N. W. 14.
In the case of an affidavit before the land office on an application to enter land, the affidavit need not have been subscribed; Nurnberger v. U. S., 156 Fed. 721, 84 C. C. A. 377.
For a form of an indictment for an attempt to suborn a person to commit perjury, see 2 Chitty, Cr. Law 480. There must be knowl edge that the testimony is false on the part of both, he who solicits and he who is solicit ed ; Coyne v. People, 124 Ill. 17, 14 N. E. 668, 7 Am. St. Rep. 324; U. S. v. Evans, 19 Fed. 912.
An indictment was held sufficient, though the precise persons to be suborned and the time and place of such suborning were not particularized ; Williamson v. U. S., 207 U. S. 426, 28 Sup. Ct. 163, -52 L. Ed. 278.