State v. . MacE

Ruffin, J. This court is of the opinion that no one of the defendant’s exceptions is well taken. I. The signature of the prosecuting officer, while usually attached to the indictment, forms no part of it, and is in no manner essential to its validity. The indictment is not his work, but is the act of the grand jury declared in open *670 court, and need not be signed by any one; and if it be, it is mere surplusage and cannot vitiate it. State v. Vincent, 1 Car. Law Rep., 493; State v. Cox, 6 Ired., 440. II. The administration of an oath to a witness is an offL cial act of the court; and it being shown affirmatively that an oath was administered to the defendant in open court on the Bible, a presumption arises that it was rightly done. The maxim omnia presumuntur rite esse acta applies in no case with greater effect than to official acts of this nature, the minute and particular details of which, while important, are not likely to attract such attention as to insure their being accurately remembered. III. We presume the other point-, as to the immateriality of the evidence given in by the defendant, the alleged falsity of which is the subject of this prosecution, could hardly have been seriously taken. If a number of articles of any kind be stolen, the greater the number of them that can be traced to the possession of a party accused, the greater the probability of his guilt must be — -and certainly, in no point of view could it be considered an immaterial circumstance to show that all of the missing articles came •recently to his possession. There is no error. Let this be certified to the court below,' to the end that the matter may be proceeded in according to law. No error. Affirmed.