Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Ind. 543

Simpkins v. Malatt

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1857

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1857-12-03

<p>APPEAL from the Warren Court of Common Pleas.</p>

Relies on Commonwealth v. Cornish

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1934

12 state decisions

40185718601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stuart, J.

¶1Affidavit for a writ of ne exeat. Motion to dismiss for want of a sufficient affidavit, sustained; exception and appeal.

B. F. Gregory and J. Harper, for the appellant.J. JR. M. Bryant, for the appellees.

¶2The point of objection is, that the affidavit is not positive. The plaintiff swears that he has reason to believe, and does verily believe, that Hale and Malatt are about to remove, &c. The language of the statute is that the plaintiff or his agent shall make an affidavit that the plaintiff is about to remove, &c.

¶3Is the affidavit sufficient? We think it was. “It was formerly thought,” says Roscoe, “that an oath was not perjury unless sworn to in absolute and direct terms; and that if he swear according to his belief, he could not be convicted of perjury. But the modern doctrine is otherwise. Belief is to be considered an absolute term: hence, to swear that he believes a thing to be true, is equivalent to swearing that it is true.” Ros. Cr. Ev. 814, and the English authorities cited. — 6 Binn. 249.

Per Curiam.

¶4The judgment is reversed, with costs.

/9/ind/543 · .json · Public domain