Two other errors are assigned, both arising upon the information upon which defendant was tried, viz: (1) That the information was verified upon “information and belief,” and was not verified positively; (2) that the information omits to state in terms or in any other manner that the prosecution of the defendant is instituted either in the name or by the authority of the state of North Dakota. We think the assignment of error relating to the verification of the information is not well taken. The statute allowing an information to be filed in lieu of an indictment in criminal cases (§ 3, chapter 71, Laws 1890) declares: “The state’s attorney, prosecuting witness, or some other person shall verify the information.” The manner of verification is not prescribed in the statute, nor does the statute expressly provide, as is the case in the statute regulating verifications in civil cases, that an attorney may in certain cases verify a pleading to the effect that the same is true to his “best knowledge, information, and belief.” But, inasmuch as the statute allows the state’s attorney to verify the information in all cases, it would, in our opinion, be unreasonable to say that that officer must swear to the information positively and without qualification in all cases. We think such a construction would, in a majority of cases, necessarily prevent a verification by the state’s attorney, and in not a few cases prevent a verification by any witness; in which event, of course, no information could be filed, as all informations are required by the statute to be verified. It rarely occurs that the state’s attorney has such personal knowledge of the essential facts of a crime as will permit him to swear to their existence in positive and unqualified terms. In many cases the crime can only be proven as a result of the testimony of several witnesses, each giving testimony as to separate links in the chain of evidence necessary to convict. In such cases no witness would be prepared to testify to all the essential facts constituting the crime positively and without qualification. This view is sustained by the Michigan cases. Mentor v. People, 80 Mich. 91; Washburn v. People, 10 Mich. 372. See, also, State v. Montgomery, 8 Kan. 351; State v. Nulf, 15 Kan. 404 We think the verification sufficient, and hence overrule the assignment of error on that point. But we limit
