State v. Trook, 21,337

Citation88 N.E. 930, 172 Ind. 558
Case DateJune 30, 1909
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

88 N.E. 930

172 Ind. 558

The State of Indiana


No. 21,337

Supreme Court of Indiana

June 30, 1909

From Miami Circuit Court; John M. Nelson, Special Judge.

Prosecution by The State of Indiana against Orrin H. Trook. From a judgment for defendant, the State appeals.


James Bingham, Attorney-General, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White and W. H. Thompson, for the State.

Frank D. Butler and Blacklidge, Wolf & Barnes, for appellee.

OPINION [88 N.E. 931]

[172 Ind. 559] Montgomery, C. J.

Appellee was charged by affidavit with subornation of perjury in the preparation of a report to the Auditor of State, required under the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 182, §§ 2994a-2994j Burns 1905), for the regulation of private banks, as continued in force by the act of 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 174, §§ 3402-3417 Burns 1908).

The court sustained appellee's motion to quash, to which the State excepted, and assigns this ruling as error upon appeal. The affidavit is quite lengthy, and we cannot with propriety set it out in this opinion.

The report upon which the prosecution was predicated was presumably made in pursuance of the requirements of § 2994e, supra, which reads as follows: "Every bank, partnership, firm or individual transacting a banking business under the provisions of this act shall make to the Auditor of State not less than two reports each year, according to the form which [172 Ind. 560] may be described [prescribed] by the Auditor of State, which report shall be verified by some member of the firm, partnership or the individual owner of such bank," etc.

Appellee's counsel defend the ruling of the lower court on the ground, first, that the oath attached to the report was not one required by law, since the statute provides only that the report shall be "verified," but does not say that it shall be by oath or affirmation.

We are mindful of the rule that in criminal proceedings statutes involved must be strictly construed, but the term "verified," as used in this connection, has such a well-known meaning as to admit of no doubt of the legislative intent. The primary definition of the verb "verify," when used in matters of law, as given in the Standard Dictionary is: "To affirm under oath; confirm by formal oath; as, to verify pleadings in an action; to verify accounts, etc." This is plainly the sense in which the term was here used, and the oath attached was therefore one required by law. DeWitt v. Hosmer (1848), 3 How. Pra...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Trook, 21,337.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 30, 1909
    ...172 Ind. 55888 N.E. 930STATEv.TROOK.No. 21,337.Supreme Court of Indiana.June 30, Appeal from Circuit Court, Miami County; J. N. Tillett, Judge. Orrin H. Trook was charged with subornation of perjury. A motion to quash was sustained, and the state appeals. Affirmed. [88 N.E. 931]James Bingha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT