Case Name: Lucy J. Horne vs. City of Haverhill
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1873-11
Citations: 113 Mass. 344
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lucy J. Horne vs. City of Haverhill.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 344–344

Head Matter:
Lucy J. Horne vs. City of Haverhill.
The certificate of a magistrate that a deponent was “affirmed by me according to law” sufficiently shows that the deponent declared that he had conscientious scruples against taking any oath, and that the magistrate on inquiry was satisfied of the truth of the declaration.
Tort to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of an alleged defect in the highway.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the plaintiff, to prove the extent of her injuries, introduced the deposition of one Dr. Sanborn, the material portion of the magistrate’s certificate of the taking of which was as follows: “ The within named deponent, personally appearing before me, at Haverhill in said county, was first affirmed by me, according to law, to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, relating to the cause or matter for which his within deposition was to be taken ; and then being examined on interrogatories, according to law, gave on his affirmation the within deposition.” To the introduction of this deposition the defendants objected that it appeared from the certificate of the magistrate before whom it was taken, that the deponent did not make oath to the truth of his testimony as given, and that it did not appear by it that there was any legal reason for his affirming to the truth, of his testimony, instead of making oath to its truth. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
D. Saunders, for the defendant.
H. Carter, (J. P. Jones with him,) for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The certificate of the magistrate, that the deponent was affirmed by him according to law, necessarily implies that he had first performed the duty, imposed upon him by the statutes of the Commonwealth, of determining on inquiry that the witness had conscientious scruples against taking an oath. Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 11, 19, 23. Hall v. Hoxie, 3 Met. 251.
Exceptions overruled.