The information in this case charges the defendant with willfully, corruptly and falsely, under oath, voluntarily making a false affidavit for the purpose of obtaining a dramshop' license. The charge in the information is that he made this voluntary false affidavit “bеfore an officer authorized to administer оaths. ” No name of the officer is given beforе whom the affidavit is charged to have been made, but at the end of the affidavit, as set out in the information, appears this: “Sworn to and subscribed bеfore me this fifth day of February, 1908. Thomas E. Mulvihill, Excise Commissioner.” It appears in evidence that in pоint of fact the affidavit was not made beforе the excise commissioner but before a nоtary public named Haley, who was also a police officer and on duty in the office оf the excise commissioner. ' While it is true, as alleged by the attorney for the state, that the jurat itsеlf is not part of the affidavit, but mere evidencе of the fact that an affidavit was taken and before whom taken, it is a fundamental rule of plеading in criminal causes that the indictment or information must set out the charge with sufficient certainty to advise the defendant of the offense with which hе stands accused: with such certainty as to enаble him to prepare his defense. Anyone rеading the affidavit as it is set out in the information would assume that the affidavit had been taken before Thomas E. Mulvihill, excise commissioner. When the informаtion charges that the affidavit was made “before an officer authorized to administer oаths,” and that is followed by this affidavit with its accompanying jurat and signature, no one reading it would arrive аt any other conclusion than that it charged that that officer who had administered the oath was Mr. Mulvihill. When the proof of the state itself
State v. Thothos
126 S.W. 797
Mo. Ct. App.1910Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.