
    Commonwealth versus Moses Sherman.
    Certiorari. The question was whether, upon a complaint by a clerk of a company of militia against a private soldier for neglect of duty, parol evidence that the clerk had been duly sworn was admissible. (See 4 Pick. 66, [2d ed. 68, n. 1.] S. C.)
    
    
      Bates and Dewéy,
    
    to show that the certificate of the clerk’s being sworn, pursuant to St. 1809, c. 108, § 8, was not indispensable, cited Green v. Gill, 8 Mass. R. Ill ; Nason v. Dillingham, 15 Mass. R. 170; Bucknam v. Ruggles, ibid. 180. [See Revised Stat. c. 12, § 112, p. 127.]
    
      
      Bliss junior,
    on the other side, was stopped by the Court ancj afterwards, at the November term in Essex, the proceedings upon the complaint were quashed, because there was no certificate, as required by the statute, upon the warrant appointing the clerk, that he had been duly sworn.
     