Saltar v. Applegate

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Saltar v. Applegate

23 N.J.L. 115

DecidedApril 15, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.J.L. 115 (Saltar v. Applegate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saltar v. Applegate, 23 N.J.L. 115 (N.J. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

This was an action laid at the last Mercer Circuit. Mr. Field, for the defendant, moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside. At the trial, testimony taken in Nova Scotia under a commission was offered, which was objected to on the ground that it did not appear on the face of the return that the commissioners were sworn before a person lawfully authorized to administer an oath. The oath, as administered, was returned upon the commission, and by the jurat it appeared that the commissioners had been sworn before a person whose name was subscribed “ A. B., Justice of the Sup. Court of Nova Scotia.” There was no recital in the return of the commissioners that they had been sworn before a person lawfully authorized to administer an oath, nor was it so stated in the affidavit or jurat.

The objection was overruled, and Mr. Field, for the defendant, now moved for a rule, on the ground that the justice who tried the cause had erred in the admission of the testimony. He cited Den d. Perry v. Thompson, 1 Harr. 72.

Mr. Vroom, contra, insisted that the court would infer power to administer an oath in a judge of a court of high jurisdiction, such as the Supreme Court of that British province.

The court refused the rule.

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

This was an action laid at the last Mercer Circuit. Mr. Field, for the defendant, moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside. At the trial, testimony taken in Nova Scotia under a commission was offered, which was objected to on the ground that it did not appear on the face of the return that the commissioners were sworn before a person lawfully authorized to administer an oath. The oath, as administered, was returned upon the commission, and by the jurat it appeared that the commissioners had been sworn before a person whose name was subscribed “ A. B., Justice of the Sup. Court of Nova Scotia.” There was no recital in the return of the commissioners that they had been sworn before a person lawfully authorized to administer an oath, nor was it so stated in the affidavit or jurat.

The objection was overruled, and Mr. Field, for the defendant, now moved for a rule, on the ground that the justice who tried the cause had erred in the admission of the testimony. He cited Den d. Perry v. Thompson, 1 Harr. 72.

Mr. Vroom, contra, insisted that the court would infer power to administer an oath in a judge of a court of high jurisdiction, such as the Supreme Court of that British province.

The court refused the rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.J.L. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saltar-v-applegate-nj-1851.