French against Bellew and Cullimore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1813 |
| Date | 10 May 1813 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 105 E.R. 113
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[302] french against bellbw and cullimoee. Monday, May 10th, 1813. Where an affidavit of debt contained no place in the jurat, but purported to be sworn before the Chief Justice of the King's Bench of Ireland, and to be signed by him, and such signature was verified by affidavit here: Held that it was sufficient foundation for arresting the defendant under a Judge's- order on mesne process. The defendant Cullimore was arrested on mesne process in this cause by a Judge's order, upon an affidavit of debt for 12001. purporting to be sworn before the Chief Justice of the King's Bench of Ireland, and to bear his signature, but no place was mentioned in the jurat: but .the signature of the Chief Justice was verified by an affidavit sworn before a Judge of this Court at Serjeants' Inn. Richardson moved to discharge the defendant out of custody upon filing common bail; on the ground that the affidavit of debt ought to have contained .some place or county, or at least the affidavit verifying it should have supplied the omission by shewing where it was made: otherwise, if false, the party making it could not be indicted for perjury in the Courts of this country or in those of Ireland; the law of England and Ireland being in this respect the same. And admitting, according to Omealy v. "Jewell (a)2, that the affidavit need not be such as, if false, to be capable of supporting ah indictment specifically for perjury: yet, as the using a false affidavit was considered in that case to be punishable by indictment, ft must be in such form as to be capable of supporting an indictment for that offence; which this affidavit is not causa qua supra. Besides, although this Court so far takes judicial notice of the authority of the Judges both of Ireland and Scotland to take affidavits, as not to require any verification of their competence so to [303] do; which in the ease of affidavits made before foreign magistrates it always requires; yet it goes no farther: (a)1 5 East, 79, Roe -v. Vernon. 11 East, 58, Goodright v. Pears. 15 East, 309. Marshall v. Hopkins. ' (of 8 East, 364. 114 HOWE V. ROACH 1M. &S. 304. and therefore in such cases it is necessary to shew that their authority was exercised within its proper jurisdiction. Lord Ellenborough C.J. The only question is this, whether in the exercise of our discretion we must not presume that...
To continue reading
Request your trial