Opinion
(September Term, 1794.)
One can be convicted for perjury upon a deposition if he is proven to have made it and it is false, though it is not signed.
THE defendant on his part offered in evidence the deposition of a Mrs. Work, which appeared not to have been signed by her. Objected that a deposition thus circumstanced cannot be read, because if the party had sworn falsely, she could not be indicted for it; or, if indicted, she could not be convicted. The deposition not being signed by her could not be given in evidence against her. To support this position was cited Bull. Nisi Prius, 230.
In case of an indictment for perjury for a false oath in making a deposition, it is most proper that the party's name should be signed, in order that she may be more easily identified by proof of her handwriting. yet if she can be otherwise proved to have sworn to the deposition, she may be convicted. Therefore this deposition should be received, though it be not signed by the deponent. Vide 1 P. Wil., 414; 2 Eq. C. Ab., 417, contra, and the deposition was read accordingly.
NOTE. — In S. v. Ransome, ante, 1, in which it was held that a person might be indicted upon an affidavit not signed. See the next case.
Cited: Rutherford v. Nelson, post, 106; Boggs v. Mining Co., 162 N.C. 394.