Odger's English Common Law

,20.0 OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
one witness will be sufficient, if he be corroborated in some
material particular. Such corroboration may consist of a
verbal or written admission made by the defendant contra-
dicting his own evidence.
Thus, a letter written by the defendant either before or after he is
alleged to have committed perjury may be sufficient corroboration of a
single witness, who has sworn to the falsity of the defendant's statement. 1
But where the only evidence tendered of the falsity of the perjury alleged
in the indictment was that on another occasion the defendant had sworn
the exact opposite, G-urney, B., held that, as there was nothing before him
to show which of these contradictory statements was true and which was
false, the defendant must be acquitted. 2
Lastly, the prosecution must prove what was the state of
the prisoner's mind at the time when he made the statement.
If he knew or believed that the evidence which he was giving
was false, that is sufficient. If he was in entire ignorance
on the matter and knew that he was ignorant, his making a
positive statement as to it was equivalent to an assertion that
he knew what he was saying to be true, and he can be punished
for his reckless assumption of knowledge. If he purposely used
words which he knew would convey a wrong meaning to those
who heard them, he can be convicted of perjury, although the
words apart from such meaning may have been literally true ;
for in such a case he did intend to convey that which was
false.
Thus in a gruesome old case, where the defendant had cut off a dead
man's hand and with it had signed, sealed and delivered a deed, and had
then sworn that he saw the deed sealed and delivered by the dead man's
own hand, it was held that in purposely conveying a wrong meaning by
the use of words which were literally true he had taken a false oath. 3
Embracery.
The verdict of a jury must be obtained only by the
evidence and arguments laid before them in open court.
An attempt to influence jurors by bribes or. any other
corrupt means is called embracery. It is a high misdemeanour
i B. v. Book (1858), 27 L. J. M. C. 222 ; B. v. Hare (1876), 13 Cox, 174.
B. v. Wheatland (1838), 8 C. & P. 238.
8 The Keepers of the Liberties of England v. Howell Gwinn (1652), Style, 336 ;
Kenny's Select Cases, 416.