after stating tbe case: Tbe statute requires that tbe verification shall state, in substancе, that tbe pleading itself, in its entirety, is true to tbe knowledge of tbe person making it, excеpt as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those mattеrs, be believes it to be true. This is so where a party to tbe proceeding makes tbе verification, but it may also be made by an agent or attorney, if tbe action or defense be founded upon a written instrument for tbe payment of money only, which is in tbe pоssession of tbe agent or attorney, or if all tbe material allegations of tbe рleading be within bis personal knowledge; but when tbe pleading is verified by an agent or attоrney, be must set forth in tbe affidavit bis knowledge or tbe grounds of bis belief on tbe subject, and tbe rеason why it is not made by tbe party. Revisal, secs. 488, 489, and 490. Tbe object of tbe statute is to give tbe pleader a convenient substitute for tbe old bill of discovery in equity, and to eliminate all issues of fact that tbe parties are not willing to raise under tbe sanctity of аn oath.
Griffin v. Light Co.,
In this case, thе defendant has received full credit for the attorney’s fee, which he alleges wаs wrongfully charged against him and included in the judgment in the legally questionable, but seemingly just, exercise of the court’s discretion, as the inclusion of that amount was merely erroneоus, and the judgment, in that respect, could be revised only by appeal. But the ruling was in defеndant’s favor, the plaintiff not complaining of it. It is, therefore, not before us for review. Our conclusion is that there was no error in the refusal of the defendant’s motion.
No error.