Case ID: wright_1/html/0775-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOND, FOR THE USE, &c., v. WARD.
    Depositions — swearing witness — certificate—amendment—authentication. '
    Depositions to he read must show the witness duly sworn.
    If the certificate be insufficient, the magistrate cannot afterwards supply it.
    If the deposition be taken out of the judicial circuit where used; it must be authenticated by evidence of the magistrate’s authority.
    Depositions were taken in Madison county in 1832, before a justice. His certificate did not show that the witness was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, &c. About a year afterwards, the justice made a new certificate, of the witness being duly sworn, <&c. The depositions were without any authentication of the justice’s ■authority at the date of his last certificate than his own signature.
    
      Olds excepted to the depositions.
    
      Doan contra.
   BY THE COURT.

We have just decided upon the necessity of the certificate of the oath being administered to the witness. We ■do not think the justice, having once spent his authority, has a right at a subsequent time, without notice, to supply the defects in the evidence of it by his own certificate. But these depositions are inadmissible, because they were taken out of this judicial circuit, and there is no evidence other than the justice’s signature of his authority to act. The statute expressly requires parol proof, or a [748 certificate of the clerk under the seal of the court, that the justice had authority to act at the time, when the deposition is taken out •of the judicial circuit where used: (.29 O. L. 126.)

The exceptions are allowed. ,