Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/709

694 PBDBBAIi REPOBTER. �district attorney approved the bond he examined the plaintiff in error and his wife particularly in regard to their property, real and per- Bonal. After the bond was executed and the affidavit waa sworn to and signed, it was approved by the district attorney of the United States, and was subseqaently accepted by the proper officer of the treasury, and revenue stamps to a large amount were issued to Ayer. On the trial of the case before the district court the afiSdavit was offered in evidence, and objection was made on the ground that it was not an instrument required by law to be sworn to, and that therefore a false statement contained therein did not constitute perjury. This objection was overruled by the court, to which exception was taken. It was also shown that the plaintiff in error admitted that he was not pecuniarily responsible, but that his wife was responsible as surety, they both having signed the bond. There was evidence also offered tending to show that the statement set forth in the affidavit sworn to by the wife of the plaintiff in error was false as to the value of the real property therein desoribed and as to the title thereto. The plaintiff in error admitted on the trial, by his counsel, that he procured his wife to sign the bond, and that he was responsible for whatever she had done, but denied that she hadcommitted perjury. The oounsel of the plaintiff in error, addressing the court, said, in his presence and hear- ing, "The defendant consents that a verdict of gtlilty may be rendered by the jury," and the court thereupon said, "Does the defendant so consent?" No objection was made, and the plaintiff in error nodded his head in reply to the question of the court, and a verdict of guilty was then directed to be rendered by the jury, which was accordingly done in the presence and hearing of the plaintiff. iri error, without objection or dissent byhim. �After the recording of the verdict, a motion was made by the plain- tiff in error for a new trial, and several afSdavits were filed in support thereof, the principal object of which was, apparently, to show that the declaration of the counsel that a verdict of guilty might be ren- dered was unauthorized, and that there were several witnesses present whose testimony the plaintiff in error desired to introduce to show that the statements contained in the affidavit were true, and that his counsel was unwilling and declined to call the witnesses and intro- duce their testimony, relying upon the proposition that the affidavit was not an instrument authorized by law, and therefore perjury could not be assigned upon it. It will be seen, therefore, that after the introduction of certain evidence, further evidence was waived, and an admission made by the counsel, in the presence and hearing of the ��� �