The testimony upon which perjury is assigned must have been given by the witness wilfully and corruptly, knowing that it was false.69

63 Queen vs. Baker, L. R. I. Q. B., 797; State vs. Day, 100 Mo., 242; People vs. Macard, 109 Mich., 623; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 1586; 3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 195 196.

64 State'vs. Hunt, 137 Ind., 537;

Hanscon vs. State, 93 Wis., 273 66 Reg. vs. Lavy, 3 C. & R., 26;

Com. vs. Bonner, 97 Mass., 587. 67 People vs. Von Teideman, 120

Cal., 128.

67 Gordon vs. State, 48 N. J. L., 611; 2 Thomp. Trials, Sec. 2187; State vs. Caywood, 96 Iowa, 367; Peters vs. U. S., 2 Okl., 138; State vs. Park, 57 Kan., 431.

68 State vs. Spencer, 45 La., 1.

69 Pollard vs. People, 69 Ill., 148, 155; McCord vs. State, 83 Ga., 521; Cothram vs. State, 39 Miss., 541; U. S. vs. Babcock, 4 McLeam (U. S.), 113; Coyne vs. People, 124 Ill, 17.

It must appear that the witness knew his testimony was false, not that he did not know it to be true.70

So swearing falsely to material matters in an affidavit is not perjury unless the accused in making the affidavit knew it was to be used as evidence in the particular proceeding for which it was procured and that he made it for that purpose.71

If the accused honestly believes his testimony to be the truth there is no basis for perjury. But his belief must be reasonable and not capricious.72

For the purpose of disproving corrupt intent one may show that he consulted an attorney-at-law in reference to the matter about which he testified and in good faith acted upon the advice.73