Kissing the book has been abolished by statute (1895) in Pennsylvania.
Where a justice asks affiant if he swears to the affidavit, and he replies that he does, the oath is sufficient though be does not hold up his hands and swear ; Dunlap v. Clay, 65 Miss. 454, 4 South. 118.
Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him, "You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that," etc., "and this as you shall answer to God at the great day." In another form of attestation, commonly called an affirmation (q. v.), the officer re peats, "You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that ;" which is the form prescribed in England by 8 Geo. I. ch. 6.
A general oath that the evidence "shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," etc., is all that is necessary for a witness who testifies to the signing of an instrument in his presence, and trans lates the language of such instrument for the benefit of the jury ; Krewson v. Purdom, 13 Or. 563, 11 Pac. 281.
A Jew is sworn on the Pentateuch, or Old Testament, with his head covered; Stra. 821, 1113; a Mohammedan, on the Koran; 1 Leach 54; a Gentoo, by touching with his hand the foot of a Brahmin or priest of his religion; a Brahmin, by touching the hand of another such priest; Wils. 549; 1 Atk. 21; a Chinaman, by breaking a china saucer; 1 C. & M. 248. See State v. Chyo Chiagk, 92 Mo. 395, 4 S. W. 704.
After a witness has taken the oath ac cording to the custom and religion of his country, it is not error to require him to take the statutory oath ; State v. Gin Pon,
16 Wash. 425, 47 Pac. 961.
The requirement of an "oath" as used in any act or resolution of congress shall be deemed complied with by making affirma tion in the judicial form ; U. S. R. S. § 1.
The form and time of administering oaths, as well as the person authorized to adminis ter, are usually fixed by statute. See Her man v. Herman, 4 Wash. C. C. 555, Fed. Cas. No. 6,407 ; U. S. v. Bailey, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 238, 9 L. Ed. 113 ;. Oaks v. Rodgers, 48 Cal. 197; arnold v. Middletown, 41 Conn. 206. The ad ministering of unlawful oaths is an offence against the government; Whart. Lex.
By the Promissory Oaths Act (31 & 32 Viet. c. 72) a number of unnecessary oaths have been abolished, and declarations substi tuted. The same act provides a new form of the oath of allegiance, and forms of a judicial oath and an official oath to be taken by particular officers. See also Promissory Oaths Act of 1871.
In Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebras ka, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin there are constitutional provisions intended to exclude any religious test for the competency of witnesses.
The Bible is not an indispensable requi site in the administration of an oath ; Peo ple v. Cook, 8 N. Y. 67, 59 Am. Dec. 451.
See KISSING THE BOOK.