Case ID: me_29/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wells, J. orally.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy Pratt versus Edward Knight.
    Tiie plaintiff is under no necessity of filing a counter brief statement, unless ordered by the Court.
    Assumpsit upon a note given in 1829. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and filed a brief statement that he never promised within six years before the commencement of the action.
    At the trial, before Goodenow, J., in the District Court, the defendant objected to the reading of the note, because there was no replication or counter brief statement that the note was a witnessed note, which objection was overruled, and the note was read. By consent, the Judge reported that, with two other questions for the decision of the Court.
    
      Barnes and Freeman, for plaintiff.
    
      Augustine Haines, for defendant.
    The only question defendant’s counsel would present to the Court is, “ whether the plaintiff could offer evidence of the making and attestation of the note, not having pleaded a replication, or filed a counter brief statement that the note was a witnessed note. Rev. Stat. chap. 115, § 18 and cases referred to in margin.
   Wells, J. orally.

The general issue is pleaded, and a brief statement of the statute of limitations. There is no rule of Court on this matter, and the plaintiff is not bound to file a counter brief statement, unless ordered so to do. But in this case there need to be no question about the pleadings, as it comes up on a statement of facts.

Defendant defaulted.