
    16749.
    Hart v. The State.
    Decided November 10, 1925.
    Indictment for perjury; from Cook superior court—Judge Knight. July 11, 1925.
    The indictment charged John Hart with “the offense of John Hart, for that the said perjury, on the 13th day of November in the year 1922 in the county [of Cook] aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and with force and arms wilfully, knowingly, absolutely, and falsely swear in a matter material to the issue in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Homer Smith, charged with simple larceny in the superior court of Cook county, Georgia, after a lawful oath had been administered to him, the material matter so sworn to by the accused being as follows: [setting out the testimony], This testimony was material upon the issues involved in the ease as stated above. Contrary to the law of said State,” etc.
    The demurrer was on the following grounds: (1) The indictment charges John Hart with “the offense of John Hart, for that the said perjury” did, etc. This charges no offense. (2) The indictment fails to allege that Cook superior court had jurisdiction of the case of the State vs. Homer Smith; the day on which it is claimed the defendant committed the offense of perjury is not alleged; it is not alleged that the superior court had power and authority to administer an oath to the said John Hart in the trial of said case; it is not alleged that there was a legal, valid indictment or special presentment returned against said Homer Smith, or that the same was returned by a legally empanelled, qualified grand jury of' Cook superior court.
   Broyles, O. J.

1. The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled.

2. Under all the facts of the case it is not made to appear that the court abused its discretion in denying the motions for a continuance of the case.

3. The accused was charged with having committed perjury during the trial of a criminal case in which the defendant (charged with hog-stealing) was acquitted. Upon the trial in the instant case the indictment in the former case, with the verdict and other entries thereon, was introduced in evidence, as were also the minutes of the court. Upon the uncontradicted showing by the State that a record of the former case had never been made, since the testimony, although taken down in short-hand, had never been transcribed by the reporter, and that the reporter was dead, it was not error to allow oral evidence as to the testimony in the former trial by the accused in the instant case. The case of Hefling v. State, 88 Ga. 151, cited and relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error, is easily distinguished by its facts from this case.

4. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows reversible error, the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and for no reason assigned in the exceptions pendente lite is another hearing of the case required.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Jeff. S. Story, Hendricks & Hendricks, for plaintiff in error.

H. G. Morgan, solicitor-general, contra.  