Case ID: scl_2/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Judges,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Taylor ads. Moses Meyers.
    
      Charleston,
    
    1803.
    Where the witness11 to a eannotbe^ro-handwriting vedSt before" plaintiff can prove the hand-writing or maker ofa stamiingW ule aiiowd 1the Proveiffbonds or notes by other persons than the suh-Besses'.5 'nt"
    
      Gilb. Lena of JEv. 99.12mm. 260. Lou 205.
    
    DEBT on bond. Verdict for plaintiff in Georgetown district. Motion for new trial.
    In tilis case the presiding judge (Bay) permitted the plaintiff to prove the hand-writing of the obligor to the k°nc4 (under the late act for permitting parties to prove-notes and bonds, by other persons knowing their hand» . . - ..... . . , writings, than the subscribing witnesses,) without proving the hand-writings of the witnesses to the execution of it ¡ when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
    This was, therefore, a motion for a new trial on the Srounil °I niistake of the Judge, in permitting this kind of testimony to be given, without proving the signa» tures of the witnesses.
    In support of the motion it was urged, that, although the act intended to save the expense and trouble of witnesses to bonds and notes from attending in all cases to prove the execution of them, by allowing other persons to prove them, who might know the hand-writing of the obligor or party making the note, yet it did not destroy the common law rule of proving the hand-writings of the witnesses, in the first instance, before the plaintiff could be let in to prove the hand-writing of the obligor or maker of a note, in the same manner as if such witnesses were dead, or out of the jurisdiction of the court.
    
      Tiie case ot* since ,be,en, overruled by thejudges,and plaintiff may prove his note or bond with-0ut proving thfgs^of’the Lt of -Dccernier,
   The Judges,

after hearing arguments, were of opinion, that, although the act is silent on the subject of proving the hand-writings of the witnesses to a bond or note, it was safest to conform to the old common law rules of evidence upon the subject, and prove their signatures in the first instance.

Rule for new trial was therefore made absolute.

N. B. The Judges, in a subsequent case, upon reconsideration of this point, were of opinion they had laid down the rule too strictly in the above decision, as incon-J sistent with the spirit of the act, which certainly was intended to remove, as far as possible, every difficulty out . . . , t , , , of the way, m proving bonds and notes, where there was no allegation of forgery, duress, or the like ; and thought that the proof of the hand-writings of the witnesses might be dispensed with; and that proof of the hand-writings of obligors or parties making notes was sufficient, without proving the names of the witnesses.