EALPH V. DNITEDi STATES. 693 �upon the material points in this case, which cannoi be easily recon- ciled, The good characters of all the witnesses have been shown by the testimony of their aequaintances. In judging of the credibility ot the witnesses, you should consider the motives by which they are in- fluenced, and the manner in which they conducted themselves on the examination before you. Yon cannot decide the case upon the pre- ponderance of testimony, as juries can do in civil cases. The pre- sumption of innocence which the law throws around a person on trial for crime remains with and protects him until the government, by the whole evidence, satisfies a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty in the manner and form as charged in the indietmentr ���Ealph ». United States. {Circuit Court, JT. D. Illinois. December 5, 1881 ) �1, Cbimbs — Pbbjuri — Matoh-Stamp Bond — Afpidavit of Surett. �The affldavit required by the regulations of the treasury department to be made by a surety upon an ordinary match-stamp bond, to secure the payment due to the United Btates for internai revenue stamps to be delivered on credit to a manufacturer of matches, settiug forth the pecuniary responsibility of the surety, is an instrument authorized by law ; and if statements made thereln as to his pecuniary responsibility are false to his knpwledge, the surety is guilty of perjury. �On Error to the District Court. �Bisbee e Ahrens, for plaintiff in error. �J. B. Leake, Dist. Atty., for the United States. �Dbummond, g. J., (orally.) Under the provisions of the internai revenue laws of the United States, one Phineas Ayer, in December, 1S78, procured a bond with sureties in the sum of $30,000, being an ordinary match-stamp bond, in the form then required by the com- missioner of internai revenue, to secure the payment due to the United States for certain internai revenue stamps, to be delivered to Ayer on credit as a manufacturer of matches. As a necessary condi- tion to the acceptance of this bond and of the sureties, the regulations of the treasury department required that an affidavit of the surety should he made before some officer qualified to administer an oath, signed by the surety, and setting forth his pecuniary responsibility. Such an aflSdavit was signed by the plaintif! in error and by his wif e, Matilda S. Ealph in this case, before a proper officer. The indictment charges that the plaintiff in error procured his wife to sign the affi- davit, and that she committed perj,ury in signing it. Before the ��� �
