Case ID: la-ann_21/html/0628-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ludeling, 0. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 665.
    William Campbell, Administrator, v. Claire Thibodeaux, Widow, etc.
    Tbe ambiguity in tlie testimony of a witness will be so construed as to haromnize with the view taken of it by the Court a qua.
    
    from the Parish Court of Lafayette. Bailey, J.
    If. B. Gerard for plaintiff and appellee. James A. Breaux for defendant
    and appellant.
   Ludeling, 0. J.

This action is instituted on a promissory note, to which the defendant affixed her mark. The judgment by default was made final after the legal delays, and the defendant has appealed.

The only question presented in this case is, whether the. mark of the defendant has been proved. We think it has. The attesting witness says “ that he was the witness to the signature to the note marked A, and that Claire Moss is Claire Thibodeaux, widow J. W. Moss.” The District Judge, who heard the witness, considered the signature proved, and, if there was ambiguity in the language of the witness, we would be inclined to interpret it so as to sustain the correctness of the action of the Judge a quo.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs of appeal.