the veracity of those statements. Marsden v. Troy, 189 S.W. 960, 964 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1916, no writ) (distinguishing between an oath and affidavit). An affidavit is simply another way to manifest an oath. It is a pledge in written form, Marsden v. Troy, 189 S.W. at 964, constituting prima facie evidence that an oath was taken. Order of Aztecs v. Noble, 174 S.W. 623, 624 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1915, no writ) (dealing with a jurat). That its formalities were not met does not negate the exis tence of the oath; it merely vitiates the use of the instrument as proof that an oath was taken. Often, one may present other evidence to prove that particular statements were sworn to in spite of the defective instrument. See e.g., King v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 440, 320 S.W.2d 677, 678 (1959) (<HOLDING>). Here, for example, the stipulations executed
holding that in absence of a jurat the fact that the statement was sworn to may be shown by other evidence holding that the question of guilty knowledge and especially intent to defraud may be shown by other than direct evidence holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint holding that the jurat is an integral part of rule 166af  which particularly refers to sworn or certified copies  referred to in an affidavit  holding that police officers sworn affidavit that miranda warnings were given was held sufficient to deny suppression of defendants postarrest statement in the absence of properlysupported statement by defendant to the contrary