10 Johns. 167 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1813
Lead Opinion
The justice had authority to administer an oath in the case stated, and the oath administered was in a judicial proceeding. The error consisted in granting the attachment upon the oath of the creditor applying. The statute (sess. 31. c. 204. s. 21.) directed the attachment to issue “ on application, and satisfactory proof being offered by the creditor,” and according to wíjaí
The motion by the defendant for a new trial, qught therefore to foe denied.
See Terry v. Fargo, ante, 11 &c. V.
Dissenting Opinion
To render the charge of false swearing actionable, the false swearing must be before a court or magis».
But it was contended that {he proceedings were not void, and that perjury may be committed, though the plaintiff was illegally admitted to swear to the necessary facts, because the justice judicially decided that he was admissible. This is specious but unfounded. In Miller v. Scare and others, (2 Bl. Rep. 1145.) Chief Justice De Grey held, with the concurrence of the other* judges, “ that as to courts of a special and limited jurisdiction having power to hear and determine, a distinction must be made. While
suit. Motion