Opinion
(January Term, 1814.)
When a person signs a paper which may relate to his personal or to his political character, if it is intended to relate to the latter, it ought, for the sake of certainty, to be so expressed. But if the paper signed be peculiar to his political character, there is no need of any addition to his signature. Therefore, a warrant signed by a justice of the peace, though he does not mention his official character, cannot on that account be avoided.
MOTION for a new trial, on the ground that a warrant issued by a magistrate was improperly received in evidence. The paper was signed by the magistrate in his proper name, but nothing was annexed (162) to the signature, denoting the act to be official.
Where an act is done by a person which is referable either to his natural or political capacity, certainty requires that it should appear in the act itself that it was done in his political capacity, to make it an official act. But where the act is peculiar to his political capacity, there is no necessity of a declaration that it is done in his official capacity; for the act itself so declares. The writing offered in evidence in this case is peculiar to the official capacity of Mr. Smith; it was, therefore, entirely unnecessary for him further to declare in what capacity he acted it. It would be perfect tautology to do it.
Let the rule for a new trial be discharged.
Cited: Exum v. Baker, 118 N.C. 547.