DocketNumber: No. 26122.
Citation Numbers: 111 So. 865, 146 Miss. 662
Judges: ANDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Filed Date: 3/14/1927
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
I think the present decision is in conflict with Carlisle v.Gunn,
The mischief growing out of the practice of an affiant and an officer merely signing their names to a writing is well illustrated in Case v. People,
There are many people to whom the solemnity of formally calling upon God to witness the truth is more effective than it seems to be considered in the majority opinion. Many people make a marked distinction between signing a paper containing a statement and calling upon Deity to witness that they are telling the truth under the penalty of Divine condemnation should they testify falsely. The law proceeds upon the theory, in requiring sworn testimony and sworn affidavits, that the invoking of Deity as a witness appeals to the conscience more strongly than a mere statement or asseveration. Many valuable rights depend upon this searching of the conscience of the witness. See 30 Cyc. 1417; 22 Am. Eng. Ency. of Law, 783; Sloan v. State,