Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-06-04


NEWS ITEMS.
Mrs Lsvis cass, r., has resigned his mission At
Rome. the resignation TO take ssct Ellsn his sus-
cessOr shall Be appointed
Ex Governor johnson, Of Pennsylvania, annoah-
ces himself a. eandidate for Congress- in the 2lst
district
A UN1oS OF Two rAr1oSs.-The two branch
es Of the Presbyterian ehu-eb known IS the Asssei-
ate and Associate Reformed Synods, which have
been in session al Pitisburg for several days have
united under the name Of the 'Synod Of the United
Presbyterian Church." The ceremonies attending
the union, took place in the presence OF crowded
Oongre CATION.
The remains Of President Monroe, which have for
q quarter Of century mouldered in private tomb
in the upper part Of this city, win probably be re-
moved Virginia the Fourth CT Juy next, at the
request Of the Legislature Of that State Steps were
taken in the Common Council last night TO aid Ia
the Work.-N z. Tribune,
TIE BRITTsE FLEET on THE WEST INDIA STATION
The British already have on their West India sta
tion feet Of ships Of twice and half the number
Of guns Of the American squadron, even including
the vessels now under orders for the Gulf They
have seventeen vessels in all, twelve Of which are
steamers, carrying, in the aggregate, 80 guns.
OFFICIAL,
ODiatoas Of the Supreme Court Of the STATE Of Ten
aesses, delirEsa at Jackson at Aprik Term, 1858,
Samuel Crockett plaintiff in error, vs.. Arnold H.
Thomson.
The defendant in error brought his suit against
the plaintiff in error on this notes
"We, or either Of US, promise to pay Arnold
Thomson, the % Deer, 1858, thirty dollars for
value received qf him. Witness our hands and SEALS
this Nov. p 1852 KIRK,
The defense of Crockett is a special plea of non
est raeu based upon the alteration Of the time Of
payment from 25th Dec, 1854 to 1853, without his
knowledge or consent.
Norman A. Norden, who was acting as agent Of
ThemaSon in this matter states the facts sueeinctly
as follows;
''Frauklin Hicks brought note to me payable
to Arnold Thomson, for thirty dollars, with his
and Sam'l Croeketrs names sgned to it, made pay
able and due 25th Deer, 1854, and dated Nov,
1852. I told him he must alter the date of said
note to fulfil scontraet that lie had made with Arnold
Thomson; and then he said be would do So and he
took a pen and ink and sat down for that purpose,
and got up and handed said note to me with fig
ure of over figure Of 4, in the date Of said note
he means the alteration was made in the time of
payment. The object of this note vas to discharge
8 Judgment which Thomson then had against Kirk
with the witness, N0rdep as stsyor. L was agreed
by Thomson that if Kirk would give him note
with Crockett, or some other good surety, it should
20 in discharge Of the judgment, and Norden says
he was acting agent for Thomson in getting the
note"
The judge charged " that if the change Of the
note was by Kirk the principal maker in the pres
and by the direction Of Eorden, still it would
be valid it vas originally made, and the plaintiff
would have right to recover upon it, unless they
should find that said note had been altered by the
psyee some other holder Of the note, in which
last event, he would not be entitled to recover
The verdict vas for the plaintiff.
Was the charge correct, and if so, was the YER
dict in conformity to it, in reference to the facts
proved
writing is the highest evidence and sole repos.
tory Of the agreement Of the parties to it. Its le
gal virtue is great, that it cannot be changed,
altered enlarged, or restricted, by psro 1t is the
only admissible evidence of the the facts it CON
tains, and the agreement embraced. This alone
would suggest the necessity of the most rigid rules
against any Unauthorized changes in its terms, and
the preservation Of its purity. II need hardly be
stated that changes made at the time, OF after6ard
with the assent Of the parties do not affect the Wri
ing.
The general proposition is now well established
that any alteration of an instrument, by the party
entitled under Il, by which its legal effect is changed,
renders it void. Green, Ev., 565, 566. Addison |
on contracts, 1854. Whether an inmGlsTGl altera.
ton BY the 06liges higssf would hsYe the same ef
ieet, is left in doubt by the authorities. If
frauduleny done it certainly would be fatal but if
nnooently DONE and productive of no injury, per-
hsps it would not. h., $685. The insertions Of |
words which the law would imply is not slters- |
tion in the legal sense, and viii not viate the in
strument. h., .567. Blair vs.. Bank Of Tenn, / !
Hump, So.
The mutilation of an instrument by sisyor is /
termed gpoliatiOE, contradstinguished from alter
alton, above explained, and is very different in
its consequences and effects, and go is mutilaion BY
10 ~ Lee oIo f7an fnafrr
is 50 defsced or changed to lose its identity, it
would be merely the destruction Of the primary as
in case Of the loss of paper, compelling the perty
to resort to secondary evidence.
But in the case before u.s. the change is in q ma
teral paTt-it is in the day of payment and ecele-
the Obligee for that would make it alteration in
the legal sense, according to all the authoritss-
1t was nct done by his own hand the hand of his
agent but it vas done by Kirk under the directions
of the agent, without the presence or knowledge of
Crockett, any subsequent sanction ratification
by him. This alteration then in its legal effect, is
the same as If made by tbs obigee himself.
But it is commended, and such was the opinion of
the Circuit Judge, that the instrument was sill
good in its original form in which it is declared
upon. That would be So if the alteration, when de-
tected, could only be regarded as nulity. But Mr..
Greenleaf, Vol, $685. adopting the case Of Masters
vs.. Miller, ! Smiths Led. cases 466, and nstes,
says the ground Of this doctrine is tWo-fold. The
first that Of public policy, to prevent fraud by not
permitting man to take the chance Of committing |
a fraud without running the risk Of losing by the
event, when it is detected-the other is 10 insure
the identity of the instrument and prevent the sub
sttuOn Of another, without the privity of the party
concerned" 1t is TO operate a penalty upon the
holder, veil as protective to the other party 1t
imports fraud in law, whether 60 intended net,
and if injury is done, and the change sban-
dened by the party in whose favor it IVES intended
10 operate the consequence upon the strong grounds
Of policy and settled rules Of law is the same The
is therefore void to Crockett, but not to
Kirk, and no suit can be founded upon it, against
defendant Crockett, and so the jury should have
been explicitly instructed if the proof in the opin-
ion Of the jury made out case Of alteration here
IN explained. CARUTHERS.
TEsF: NJ. D. WELpH, Clerk.