Murphy v. . Work

Superior Court of North Carolina

Murphy v. . Work

2 N.C. 105

DecidedSeptember 5, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.C. 105 (Murphy v. . Work) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. . Work, 2 N.C. 105 (N.C. Ct. App. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

In case of an indictment for perjury for a false oath in making a deposition, it is most proper that the party's name should be signed, in order that she may be more easily identified by proof of her handwriting. yet if she can be otherwise proved to have sworn to the deposition, she may be convicted. Therefore this deposition should be received, though it be not signed by the deponent. Vide 1 P. Wil., 414; 2 Eq. C. Ab., 417, contra, and the deposition was read accordingly.

NOTE. — In S. v. Ransome, ante, 1, in which it was held that a person might be indicted upon an affidavit not signed. See the next case.

Cited: Rutherford v. Nelson, post, 106; Boggs v. Mining Co.,162 N.C. 394.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In case of an indictment for perjury for a false oath in making a deposition, it is most proper that the party's name should be signed, in order that she may be more easily identified by proof of her handwriting. yet if she can be otherwise proved to have sworn to the deposition, she may be convicted. Therefore this deposition should be received, though it be not signed by the deponent. Vide 1 P. Wil., 414; 2 Eq. C. Ab., 417, contra, and the deposition was read accordingly.

NOTE. — In S. v. Ransome, ante, 1, in which it was held that a person might be indicted upon an affidavit not signed. See the next case.

Cited: Rutherford v. Nelson, post, 106; Boggs v. Mining Co.,162 N.C. 394.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.C. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-work-ncsuperct-1794.