It is material on a charge of perjury that the oath taken by the witness must have been lawfully administered by an officer having authority and jurisdiction to swear the witness.52

A jurat of the clerk of the court under seal is not sufficient.53 And the officer administering the oath must be one de jure and not de facto. The rule which recognizes de facto officers in other cases does not apply in perjury.54

It has been held, however, that on a charge of having committed perjury before a justice of the peace the validity of his election as such justice cannot be inquired into.55

An officer elect such as an assessor is not authorized to administer oaths before the time fixed by law for him to enter upon the discharge of his duties; nor can one officer administer oaths for another, as a justice of the peace for a coroner, if not authorized by statute.56 Hence if the officer or person administering the oath had no authority to do so there can be no offense.57

51 Coyne vs. People, 124 Ill., 25;

People vs. Ross, 103 Cal., 425;

Stewart vs. State, 22 Ohio St., 477. 52 Lambert vs. People, 76 N. Y., 220, 230; Maynard vs. People, 135 Ill., 425; U. S. vs. Curtis, 107 U. S., 671; Van Dusen vs.

People, 78 Ill., 645; Morrell vs.

People, 32 Ill., 502; Biggerstaff vs. Com., 11 Bush (Ky.), 169;

Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 470.

53 Morrell vs. People, 32 El., 506.

54 Biggerstaff vs. Com., 11 Bush. (Ky.), 169; Lambert vs. People, 76 N. Y., 220; Muir vs. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.), 154; State vs. Hascall, 6 N. H., 352.

55 People vs. DeCarlo, 124 Cal., 642.

56 State vs. Knight, 84 N. C, 789; State vs. Phippen, 62 Iowa, 54.

57 Com. vs. Polluck, 6 Pa. Dist. R., 55; Van Dusen vs. People, 78 Ill., 647.