
    (86 Tex. Cr. R. 556)
    GREEN v. STATE.
    (No. 5661.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 28, 1920.)
    1. Perjury <@=>23 — Indictment should allege DIRECTLY THAT OATH WAS ADMINISTERED.
    In a prosecution for false swearing, the indictment should allege directly the administering of an oath, and it is insufficient that it appears inferentially from the jurat that the oath was administered by a notary public.
    2. Perjury <£=>22 — Indictment must allege THAT OFFICER WHO ADMINISTERED OATH WAS QUALIFIED.
    An indictment for perjury or false swearing need not set up with particularity the facts showing the jurisdiction of the court in which the oath was charged to have been administered, or of the officer alleged to have administered the oath; but it is essential that averment be made, at least in substance, that the officer who administered the oath was qualified, etc.
    Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
    Tom Green was convicted of false swearing, and he appeals.
    Reversed ' and remanded.
    W. T. Norman and J. Llewellyn, both of Liberty, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

' The conviction Is for false swearing. The indictment charged that—

“Tom Green did then and there unlawfully, voluntarily, willfully, and deliberately under oath make a false statement and affidavit in writing, and signed by him in the following words, that is: [Here follows the copy of the affidavit, concluding:] Sworn to and subscribed to before me this twenty-fourth day of April, 1918. C. R. Wilson, Notary Public in and for Liberty County, Texas.”

The sufficiency of the indictment is challenged by motion to quash, and by averments in the motion for new trial equivalent to motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground that there is no direct averment that the oath was legally administered by an officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Such an allegation is required in the forms used in this state. See Wilson’s Crim. Forms,'No. 141, p. 77, and No. 142, p. 78. It appears inferentially from the jurat that the oath was administered by C. R. Wilson, a notary public. The authorities seem to hold that such an allegation should be made directly and not inferentially. Bishop’s New Crim. Procedure, vol. 1, §§ 910a and 911.

It is not necessary, in an indictment for perjury or false swearing, to set out with particularity and in detail the facts showing the jurisdiction of the court in which the oath is charged to have' been administered, or of the officer alleged to have administered the oath; but it is believed essential that the averment be made, at least in substance, that the ojfficer who administered the path was one qualified under the, law to do so. Powers v. State, 17 Tex. App. 435; Stewart v. State, 6 Tex. App. 184; Bradberry v. State, 7 Tex. App. 375; St. Clair v. State, 11 Tex. App. 297; Jefferson v. State, 29 S. W. 1091; Waters v. State, 30 Tex. App. 286, 17 S. W. 411; Gray v. State, 4 Okl. Cr. 292, 111 Pac. 825, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 142, and note.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.  