The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1879-01-24

SIG.
The latter case is directly in point an,
holds that under such an answer az was Ole.
to each Of these bills, the complainant Is bount
to show consideration or to be bound by tn,
the denial.
can not be reasonably urged that the ordi
nary presumption arising from promissory
note can overcome the oath Of witness called
by the complainant himself who denies it. Such
a presumption, except in favor OF bona fids
holder, Is one which can always be overcome
by proofs, and is at best but prims face evil
dence. II cannot overcome credible testimony
And the same rule of pleading before referred
to called on complainant to show afirmatvely
the commences OF the documents, concerning
which defendant had been specially interrogat-
ed and which he deuiej.
The defence Of forgery rests on two alterna-
tive theories: First; that the signatures them
selves are not genuine. And second that if
genuine, they were procured by come trick to
be appended to false docum ents. And in this
controversy the question becomes very impor-
tant II no consideration passed, the proba-
bility OF actual forgery Of some kind is in
creased.
No one swears that he saw Morris sign these
papers. The subscribing witnesses and notaries
Foster & Coleman, who were sworn, testify to
a recognition Of the documents. The subscrib-
ing witness, A. NJ. Matteson, whose name up =
pears on the second mortgage, Was not sworn.
The testimony Of witnesses as to resemblance
and genuineness Of handwriting is conflicting,
and not any more satisfactory than such testi
monyis apt to be in such case. The impress
sion OF the immediate friends of Morris are
strongly against the genuieness OF the disputed
signature. Usually such impressions are more
reliable than the reasons given for them, and
in ordinary cases they are valuable. Most of
the witnesses for complainant are merely sworn
as experts, from comparisons made for the oc-
casion. This puts them in no better position
to judge than any other observer who has no
personal Acquaintance with the handwriting Of
the parties, and who has the usual means OF
judgment. Unfortunately there are some Of
the compared papers which are open to the
same dispute OF commences as those in Issue,
and witnesses who have not been called to the
stand until it has been ascertained they will
give favorable testimony cannot always dis
tlnguish the impressions they have received
from particular impressions.
The home witnesses on both sides have evil
IDENTIFY been more or less prejudiced by the To-
cal disturbance OF this litigation, and after con-
sidering the whole Of this extended testimony
upon handwriting we do not find ourselves
much aided by it. The impression made on us
by our own comparison OF the papers is unfa-
vorable to the genuineness Of the signatures.
But our previous experience has convinced us
that it is not possible to decide such matters on
signatures alone and that ii is not wise to do
30 except when the case is bare Of circum-
stances which may throw light on the probable
tiles. The worst forgery this Court was ever
required to pass upon was one where the fact
was proven beyond any doubt, and yet the sig
nature was 80 perfect that it's genuineness-
without conclusive proof Of other facts-could
not have been overthrown. Apart from and
independent Of any question or appearance Of
the signatures, the facts to counter balance the
denials in the answer Of Morris do not in gen.
eral tend in that direction. They rather tend
the other way.
While it is quite possible to borrow money,
and use 1t for purposes not known to their
friends, it cannot be denied that when any
such controversy arises as we have before US,
some light is thrown on the probabilities by the
pecuniary condition Of the parties. In the
present case, loans are involved to the amount
Of about ten thousand dollars within period
Of four months aud few days. OF this, over
1--WE thousand dollars is claimed to have been
secured in the same month at intervals OF two
weeks.
During all this time Morris go far as any
one can see, was IN no need OF euch loans, and |
vas not known by any one to have had any
,Oubiuotaoio eump III pOecesbiOu, Wnlle ne IN
,urred some small debts during this period.
which would naturally have been paid, or not
incurred II he had had cash means II he had
my such moneys, it 10 difficult to believe that
,ome one could not have traced them.
Milo d. Matteson appears, beyond doubt, to
be a graspins and sharp money lender; and
here is nothing to warrant the belief that be
would lend money on doubtful securities, or
'un any risks With those he took. It is not
usual for such dealers TO lend 90 much money
IN lands Of the moderate value here shown.
An unencumbered title to the lands would not
warrant such loans In the present case there
8 the very unusual absence OF . release of
lower from each one of the mortgages which
would greatly reduce their value.
wife may very properly and wisely decline
Ginning in mortgages which she does not sp
prove. But where mortgage lie for any large
amount, il is rarely taken without at least seek
ng her concurrence. In the present case she :
vas ignorant Of their existence. To meet this
suspicious fact theory is advanced that Morris