(Syllabus.)
Prohibition-Writ Granted. The question here Involved has this day been decided In Bennett v. District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, et al., 81 Okla. Cr. 361, 162 P.2d 561.
JONES, J., dissenting.
Original petition by Willis L. Smith for a writ of prohibition against the District Court of Tulsa County and others to prevent defendants from prosecuting petitioner on a charge of perjury. Writ granted.
Keaton, Wells & Johnston, of Oklahoma City, and Hudson & Hudson, of Tulsa, for plaintiff.
Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., E. J. Broaddus, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dixie Gilmer, Co. Atty., and M. S. Simms and John L. Ward, Jr., Asst. Co. Attys., all of Tulsa, for defendants.
BAREFOOT, P. J. Petitioner, Willis L. Smith, on November 26, 1943, filed in this court his petition seeking a writ of prohibition, in which it is alleged that petitioner was indicted on November 17, 1943, in Tulsa county, for the crime of perjury.
The identical questions in Bennett v. District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, et al., 81 Okla. Cr. 351, 162 P.2d 561, are involved in this case. It therefore becomes unnecessary to further discuss the facts herein presented.
For the reasons stated in the Bennett case, the writ of prohibition is granted, and the district court of Tulsa county is prohibited from further proceeding to try the petitioner under the indictment charging him with perjury in this case.
Page 228
M. A. (NED) LOONEY, Special J., concurs.
JONES, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent because of the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Bennett v. District Court of Tulsa County, etc., 81 Okla. Cr. 351, 162 P.2d 561.