June, 1830.

#### The State v. Willis Alexander,

From Wilkes.

..V> ii.tlicímoDt^or piwiiny, winch sols l’cvíh lliat si warrant w&•> U*ie(3 ill wiiich A. 'tcwu. iRiI !-f 55. tweiWy drill's;s for corn, &o. is suilici-doivly pvcmul, by producing a warrant l>.. tween the same paities ’■ for debt due by account,” without specifying the particulars of the account.

Tiie Defendant was indicted for Perjury. The suit in which the perjury was assigned, was set forth in the indictment as follows': that “ there was a suit came on to be tried before E. V. an acting Justice of the Peace “ for the county of Wilkes, by a warrant, wherein Wil-(i Us Alexander was Plaintiff, and Mam Grause Defend- “ ant, by which said warrant the said W. A„ claimed of “ the said A. C. among other things, the sum of twenty “ dollars for the sale and delivery of eleven barrels and il three bushels of corn to the said A. C. and twelve doi- “ lars for the wintering and feeding four steers by him « the said W. A.”

On the trial it appeared, that the warrant was, “to answer Willis Alexander of a plea of debt due by account.”

The Counsel for the. Defendant objected to the evidence. because of a supposed variance between it and the description of the suit in the indictment. But bis Honor Judge Martin thinking that the charge in the indictment was not intended as a description of the form of the warrant, hut was only intended to describe the object of tiie Plaintiff therein in sning it out, or was intended as a parol declaration which might be made on the trial, overruled the objection, and the Defendant was convicted, and appealed to this Court.

No Counsel appeared for the Defendant,

‘The Mlonieif-Generul, for the State,

*471Henderson, Chief-Justice.

Although it is not re* quimi to describe in the indictment the cause of action, i, e, the declaration in the suit, in which it is alleged the perjury was committed, yet if it be set forth, the record produced must correspond with the one set forth. The question therefore in this case is, are the words in the indictment, viz. “ twenty nine dollars for the sale and delivery of eleven barrels and three bushels of corn, and twelve dollar's for the wintering and feeding of four steers,'” descriptive of the cause of action for which the warrant was brought, or the warrant itself upon its face. I think that they.are. The warrant, as the suit in which • it was alleged that the perjury was committed, is sufficiently described in the foregoing part of the indictment, hy the words “a warrant, wherein Willis Alexander was Plaintiff, and Adam Crause was Defendant.” {Act of 1791, Rev. c. 338 ) The words, eleven barrels of corn, &c. are a mere parol declaration, to use the words of the presiding Judge, of the cause of action preparatory to a more proper understanding of that part of the indictment, which states the materiality of the oath. This opinion is much strengthened by the uniform exposition given to the act of 1794. {Rev. c. 414.) For altho’ that act requires, that it should be stated in the warrant, how the sum demanded is due, it has never been required, nor has the practice, been to insert the items of an account, it has always been sufficient to say, due by account, by assumpsit, or other general description. We are of opinion, that there was no variance between the warrant described and the one given in evidence..

Pee Curiam. — Let the .judgment of the Court below be affirmed.