
    Hunt versus Williams and Miller.
    It is not necessary that a commission sent abroad, be directed to a person authorised to administer oaths.
    THE complainant’s solicitor objected to the reading of the answer on this ground : - a blank commission had been taken out, and filled up by the defendant with the names of two persons, who did not appear either by the commission or certificate, to be authorised to administer oaths in Georgia, where they reside. He said that although the Court might direct a commission to any person, yet when the party is intrusted with a blank commission, he ought not to be allowed so much latitude : that he understood that in the case of Blount v. Simpson, the Federal Court of this district had set an answer aside on the same ground; saying, a party should direct his commission to a person authorised to administer oaths, by the laws of the country in which he resides. For, if any one could be resorted to indiscriminately, it would be easy to find some person mean enough to certify that an answer was sworn to, although no oath was ever taken.
    
      F. X. Martin for the Complainant.
    
      Gaston for the Defendant.
   By

the Court.

Surely that is a great inconvenience; but, the same mischief might occur, if the rule was as stated: for such mean persons who could be willing to certify that the answer was sworn to, without any oath being taken, would not scruple to add the letters J. P. or any title of office to their names.

Answer read.  