State v. Trook

• Decision Date: 30 June 1909
• Docket Number: No. 21,337.,21,337.
• Citation: 172 Ind. 558,88 N.E. 930
• Parties: STATE v. TROOK.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

172 Ind. 558

88 N.E. 930

STATE

v.TROOK.

No. 21,337.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 30, 1909.

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.James Bingham, A. G. Cavins, E. M. White, and W. H. Thompson, for the State. F. D. Butler, James C. Blacklidge, Conrad Wolf, and E. B. Barnes, for appellee.

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 Act 1905, p. 182, c. 109, for the regulation of private banks, as continued in force by Acts 1907, p. 174, c. 113. The court sustained appellee's motion to quash, to which the state excepted, and has assigned 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 section 5 of the act regulating private banks (Acts 1905, p. 184, c. 109), 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 may be 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. De Witt v. Hosmer, 3 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 284;Patterson v. Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, 40 N. Y. Supp. 581; section 1356, Burns' Ann. St. 1908.

It is argued that “Mark Tully's Exchange Bank,” mentioned in the affidavit, is not alleged to have been organized or to be operating under the private banking act of 1905, and for that reason there is no showing that the report mentioned was one required by law. It is provided by section 3 of that act that, on or before July 1, 1905, all persons then transacting a private banking business in the state should file a statement under oath with the State Auditor, setting forth certain prescribed information, and thereafter all persons desiring to engage in such business should file a like statement. It is further provided by the next section that on compliance with section 3, and a showing under oath that the capital stock was paid in, and the payment of a specified fee, the Auditor of State should issue a certificate or charter, authorizing the partnership, firm, or individual named to transact a banking business. It is then provided, as ...