¶1Mr. Fleming is mistaken in supposing that he can put an end to the examination by denying, under oath, the defendant’s ownership of the goods in question. If he had so certified, the plaintiff would still have been entitled to an examination on proof of the falsity of the certificate; and the present moving affidavits would have sufficed for such an order. The argument is, that if the false certificate be sustained by a false oath, then the examination can proceed no further, and the only remedy is by indictment. This is not a correct view of the statute, especially as Mr. Fleming places his denial upon a construction of letters and documents. He must produce the papers and let them speak for themselves. He was also guilty of contempt in refusing to answer a line of *9questions, which (I must be permitted to call) his apparent trifling necessitated, and which were within the discretion of the referee. • He must produce the papers, and an attachment must issue unless he pay $10 costs of this motion, and answer the questions propounded, and such others as the referee may deem proper.
3 Abb. N. Cas. 6
Rutter v. Boyd
Decided June 15, 1877
New York Supreme Court · decided 1877-06-15
<p>Attachment.—Cebtibtcate op Property attached.—Contempt. —Production op Papers.—Beperence.</p> <p>A person required to give a certificate of property in Ms hands belonging to the defendant in an attachment, who refuses to do so, may be compelled to submit to examination as well as one who giyes a false certificate.*</p> <p>He cannot put an end to the examination by denying defendant’s title to the goods.</p> <p>If he refuses to answer on the ground that papers in his possession show that the goods do not belong to the defendant, he must, if required, produce the papers, and may be punished for contempt if he refuse.</p>
Decided 1877-06-15