Case ID: scl_46/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jefferson Tuten vs. Dempsey Stone.
    
      Evidence — Promissory Note — Subscribing Witness— Decree.
    
    The subscribing witness to a promissory note, several in form, but having the names of A. and B. as drawers, testified that he saw A. alone sign it; that B. was not present: Held, That the Act of 1802 did not apply to the case, and that B.’s signature might be proved by other witnesses.
    Where there is conflicting testimony the decree of the Judge on a sum. pro. stands like the verdict of a jury, and will not be set aside.
    BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT BEAUFORT, SPRING TERM, 1859.
    The report of his Honor, the*presiding Judge, is as follows:
    
      “ This was a sum. pro. on a note made by another and the defendant. The subscribing witness proved that he saw the first maker sign the note, but that Stone was not then present. Jt was then proposed to prove Stone’s signature by other proof. It was objected that this could not be done, inasmuch as the subscribing witness had failed to prove it, and the defendant had denied the signature on oath. I thought the case as to this defendant stood as if there had been no witness to the paper. One witness, called by the plaintiff, said he knew the defendant’s writing; that he believed the signature to be his. Three witnesses for the defendant said they knew the defendant’s writing; that they believed the signature not to be his. Genuine vfritings of the defendant were produced by his attorney. On comparing the writings produced with the signature to the note, I was satisfied from such comparison and the first witness’s testimony, that the signature was the defendant’s. I therefore decreed for the plaintiff for the note and interest.”
    The defendant appealed on the grounds:
    1. Because the subscribing witness not only having failed to prove the signature of defendant, but having proved the absence of defendant at the time of the execution of the note, and defendant having filed his affidavit, denying the signature according to A. A. 1802, no other evidence as to his handwriting was competent on the part of plaintiff.
    2. Because the testimony of plaintiff’s witness was insufficient to prove the handwriting.
    3. Because defendant’s three witnesses, who were more familiar with the handwriting of defendant, testified that it was not his signature.
    4. Because the testimony was conclusive that it was not defendant’s signature.
    
      
       Copy.
      “$50. Lawtonville, 16th. May, 1855, on the first day of January next, I promise to pay Mr. Jefferson Tuten or Bearer, fifty Dollars, with interest from date, for value received.
      “ (Signed; DANIEL fc^J. JONES.
      “Witness, B. J. Gaudon.
      DANIEL STONE.”
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, C. J.

This Court concurs in the ruling of the Judge below. This note is not a joint, nor a joint and several one. It is several, signed according to the proof, at different times. The witness, Gaudon, saw Jones sign. Stone was not present. The case stood as to him, as if there had been no subscribing witness to the paper. The Act of 1802 had no application under such circumstances. His signature was therefore to be proved by the ordinary evidence of handwriting. One witness, who said he knew the defendant’s handwriting, said he believed the signature to be his. Three witnesses said they knew his handwriting and did not believe the signature to be his. This conflicting proof made a case of doubt, in which it was admissible to resort to the comparison of handwriting. Genuine signatures were produced; on comparing them with the signature in question, it was plain that the plaintiff’s witness was right. • The decision of the judge on a process is like the verdict of a jury; when there is conflicting proof, the decision, like the verdict, must stand.

The motion for a new trial is dismissed.

Johnston and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.