
    L. H. Sargent v. E. B. Townsend.
    (No. 10,448.)
    A certificate “subscribed and sworn to before me” is sufficient in form for a jurat.
    Special Term. — On motion to dismiss the action by reason of an alleged defect in the jurat;
    
      Lincoln, Smith & Warnock, for plaintiff
    
      W. L. Spooner, for defendant.
   Gholson, J.

A motion has been made in this case to dismiss the action, because the petition has not been properly-verified. The code provides that the officer before whom the affidavit is taken, shall “ certify that it was sworn to or affirmed before him, and signed in his presence.” Section III. In this case the certificate is “ subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of February, A. D. 1859.”

There can be no objection to the term “ subscribed,” it is found in section 105. “Every pleading in a court of record must be subscribed by the party or his attorney.” Is subscribed before me, then, equivalent to subscribed in my presence. I think it would be exceedingly technical to hold that it was not. While, therefore, it may, as a general rule, be better for notaries and other officers taking affidavits, to follow the language of the code, T can not think that either its words or the purposes of justice require such an objection as this to be sustained.

Motion overruled.'"  