
    James Murphy v. Alexander Work.
    The Defendant on his part offered in evidence the deposition of a Mrs. Work, which appeared not to have been signed by her — objected, that a deposition thus circumstanced cannot be read, because if the party had sworn falsely, she could not be indicted for it $ or if indicted, she could not be convicted, the deposition not being signed by her could not be given in evidence against her: and to support this position, was cited Bull. Nisi Vrius 23<). But per Judge Williams, Judge Jlshe assenting —in. case of an indictment for perjury for a false oath in ma* king a deposition; it is most proper that the party’s name should be signed, in order that she may be more easily identified by proof of her hand-writing — yet if she can be otherwise proved toJiave sworn to the deposition, she may be convicted 5 therefore tin's deposition should be received, though it be not signed by the deponent. Vide 1 P. Wil. 414. a Eq. C. M. 417, contra, and the deposition was read accordingly.
   Note.-Vide Slate v. Ransome, ante 1, in which it was held that a person might be indicted upon an affidavit not signed. See the fex' case.  