
    Wood v. Bailey.
    1. Powers os deputy. The deputy of the clerk of thq District Court has the same power to administer oaths as his principal.
    2. Objections must be specific. Objections urged to an affidavit, for a writ of error, should be so specifically and distinctly stated as to call the attention of the court to the defects relied upon.
    
      Appeal from Boone District Qourt.
    
    Friday, June 7.
    
    Writ of error to a justice of the peace. The defendant moved the court to set aside the affidavit of error, and to dismiss the case for the following reasons :
    “1. Said pretended affidavit for a writ of error in this case is not sworn to as required by law.
    
      “2. There is no basis for said writ in this, there has not been any affidavit filed for, or applying for, said writ.
    “3. The deputy clerk of the County Court, as such, can not administer the oath as he has done in this case.”
    The motion was overruled and the judgment of the justice reversed and the cause remanded. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      James M. Mlwood for the appellant.
    
      Stephen Sibley for the appellee.
   Wright, J.

I. The deputy of the county clerk has the same power to administer oaths as his principal. Code of 1851, §§ 141, 411, 412, 414 and 979.

II. The other objections urged by appellant to the affidavit for the writ of error, filed before the clerk, were not so distinctly and specifically stated in the motion as to call the attention of the court to the defects relied upon, and are therefore not noticed by us. The necessity for the observance of .this rule in all motions, demurrers and pleadings is very well settled by our practice and the decisions of this court. In this case, for instance, it is assigned as ground for the motion to quash- the writ, that the affidavit is not sworn to, and that there was no affidavit, and under it appellant urges that the attorney of the plaintiff in error had no right, without some showing, to make the affidavit. We need not say that the opposite party would not be informed by such an assignment of causes, of the defect pointed out in argument.

Judgment affirmed.  