
    The State vs. Joseph Holding.
    -?.t is not necessary, in an indictment for attempting to suborn a witness, that tile fact which the defendant attempted to procure the. witness to swear to, should be stated specifically ; as that fact would onh be evidence to shew quo animo, the bribe was offered, may be shown by other circumstances.
    TTílIED at Williamsburgh, Fall Term, 1820.
    The defendant was tried and convicted on an indictment for attempting to suborn Thomas Yarborough to commit a perjury. The indictment recited that an action of slander was pending and then to be tried in the Court of Common Pleas, for the district of Williamsburgh, whereiit the said Joseph Holding was plaintiff, and William Lefrage and Isaac Barinoxu, defendants, and charged, “ that before the trial of the said cause, and during the time the same was depending, to-wit, on the 15th March, 1819, at Kingstree, in the district and state aforesaid, the said Joseph, not having the fear of God before his eyes, hut being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, and wickedly contriving and intending, as much as in him lay, to prevent justice and pervert the due course of law', and meaning and intending unjustly to aggrieve the said Wm. Lefrage £&' Isaac Ba-rinoxv, the defendants above named, and wickedly to cause and procure large damages to he recovere d from them, for his own use and benefit, in the' suit then in question, between him the said Joseph and the said William and Isaac, then and there, to-wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, at.Kingstree, in the district and state aforesaid, he. the said Joseph, did. unlawfully and wickedly solicit and instigate, and, as much as in him lay, éncleavoir* to persuade one Thomas Yarborough to lie and appear as a; 'witness on the part and behalf of him, the said Joseph,the plaintiff, as aforesaid, at the trial of the issue joined in the; said action so pending as- aforesaid, and upon the same trial falsely to swear and give in evidence to and hefore the court and jury, before whom the said issue should be tried, of and concerning the premises alleged by the said Joseph against the said William and huac, whatever the said Joseph should require the said Thomas Tarboroiigh to sweat to, testify and give in evidence, in support of his said action : and the said Joseph then and there promised to give the said Thomas Yarborough the sum of fifty, or one hundred dollars, if the said Thomas would, at the trial of the said issue, before the Court and jury aforesaid, give such evidence as should be directed and fabricated by him the said Joseph, so as .to enable him to recover damages against the said defendants, when in fact and in truth the said 1 horn as was ignorant of any fact or circumstance in favor of the said Joseph, in the said suit; and the said Joseph well knew (at the time he so solicited, instigated and endeavored to persuade, procure and cause the said Thomas to swear in his behalf as aforesaid,) that he, the said Thomas was ignorant of any fact or circumstance in favor of the said Joseph; on the tiial of the said issue, and that he could not truly swear, as required by the said Joseph, and that in truth the said Joseph was not entitled to recover any damages in the said action, as aforesaid, to the evil etc - ample of all others, See.”
    
      Thomas Yarborough swore, on the part of the prosecu*' tion, and stated that he had been summoned as a witness on the part of the defendants in the case referred to in the indictment; and whilst attending the court, the present: defendant asked him if he was not subpoenaed as a witness against him, to which he answered yes; he then enquired if witness was not a poor man, and whether fifty or a hundred dollars would not be a great object to him, to which ¡•e answered in the affirmative. He then said to the wit'less, “ if you will relate to the Court wlrat I will now 'ell you, it' shall be as much as fifty or one hundred dollars in your way, or perhaps more.” In reply to this proposition the witness told him he would be under the necessity of communicating it to the Court when he was called on, and. the defendant swore if he did he would take his life.
    For the defendant, several' witnesses were called and sworn as to the credibility of the witness Thomas Yarbo-rough. The substance of their evidence was, that his character was' not so high as to entitle him to implicit confidence, nor so base as to render him wholly unworthy of credit. , ...
    In reply to this, several witnesses who knew Yarborough stated that they had heard nothing against his character, and they thought him worthy of1 credit; and one witness.. McCallister, stated that Yarborough had repeated the substance of the evidence now given'athis request in the presence of the defendant, who did not deny it; but stated he had not offered him any money ; meaning that he had not actually tendered him the cash. And Bostick, another witness, stated that the defendant said to him, that they would make nothing of the prosecution, as he had not given any money'.
    .The jury found,the defendant guilty, and a motion was made to arrest the judgment, on the ground, that the indictment does not particularly specify the perjury, which, the defendant is charged with having attempted to suborn the witness to commit.
    A new trial was also moved for, on the ground that the indictment 'was not supported by the evidence.
   Mr. Justice Johnson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The witness, Yarborough, proved every fact charged in the indictment, and the deductions to be'drawn from them as to the quó animo, they were committed, as well as his credibility, were questions proper- for the consideration of the jury ; and the most incredulous cannot, I think, doubt the correctness of their conclusion. The motion for a new trial must therefore fail. The finding ot the jury has fixed the facts charged upon the defendant; and that they were committed malo animo, and with the int< ntion of previ nt-ing the due, course of justice. And the motion in arr< sfc of judgment, involves the question, whether the offence so found, constitutes an offence for which the defendant can be punished criminaliter.

Dunlin, for the motion.

Hayne, attorney-general, contra.

For the defendant, it is contended that the indictment, should have .charged, specifically, the fact which the defendant attempted to procure the witness to swear to, as without it, it could not appear whether it was true or false, and the defendant might therefore be innocent.

The principle I take to be is, that any attempt to prevent the due course of justice is an indictable offence, and punishable criminaliter. On this principle, perjury, subornation of perjury, bribery, extortion, rescue, escape, &c. arc indictable offences. (1 Chitty’s Crim. Law, 85.J So in attempting to prejudice the mind of the jury, by distributing hand bills before the trial. (4 Term Rep. 285.) And in Tremain's P. C. 169, we find the precedent of an indictment for persuading a witness not to give evidence. The fact to which the defendant wished the w itness to swear, he was prevented from disclosing by the indignant repulse which the witness gave him, and did not therefore enter into the case; and if it had, it is only a circumstance going to shew the quo animo, with which the bribe was offered, and any other circumstances producing the same conviction, as to the intention, is fully sufficient. The indictment in this case does charge the act to have been done with an intention to prevtent the course of justice, and on the principle established, it is an indictable offence.

The motion is refused.

justices Nott, Huger, Richardson and Colcock, concurred.  