Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1879-10-15

Mr.. Samuel Wells had neglected to en-
dorse. Of course the company knew moth
ing OF the payment, and sue for the whole
note. The defendant was put upon the
stand to testify to the payment but was
objected to by the plaintiff as incompetent
under the statute which provides that
where lone of the original parties to con-
tract or cause of action in issue and on
trial is dead" ''the other party shall
not be admitted to testify in his own IA
vor." The court sustained the objection;
but verdict of S935.7l, the amount now
due on the note, less the 800 that was
agreed upon. and the question of compe-
tency is to be taken to the supreme court.
If it is sustained the Judgment is to be for
the full amount due on the note. sc.
Shurteff for plaintiff. Charles II. Writers
of Milton for defendant.
Homer ID. Camp VS.. N. +. Averill. The
defendant in this case, a resident of Barre,
was claimed TO have signed a note, as
surety, which read as follows:
"S4OO. BARRE, Aug. 31st, 1877.
For value received we jointly and sew
orally promise to.pay Homer d. Camp. or
bearer. four hundred dollars. on demand,
Win interest annually.
[Signed] E. o. Leonard, c. C. Leonard,
). 5. Collins, II. c. Leonard. N. F. Aver
ill, surety"
1t was upon this note that the action
was brought against Mr.. Averill. The
other parties are irresponsible, though
reputable. The principal on the note, Mr..
Il. .. Leonard, or ed" Leonard, as he
was called, hastily decamped from Barre
on the evening of the 9th of March, 1878.
| Although it was not allowed to be shown
in evidence, yet it is well known that he
left for cause and has not since been heard
from. The day after his sudden departure
Mr.. Camp came down from Orange, his
home, and began to confer with the CO.
| signers on the note which he held. Mr..
Averill denied his signature, but the plairl-
tiff, who, of course, if there had been a
| forgery committed, was not himself i'm
picated in il. and who had been made the
victim OF Ed" was forced to sue the
note. But what rendered the mystery
thrice more mysterious was the denial on
the part of the three other co-signers, c..
G. Leonard, Eds father, IL. G. Leon
ard, his brother, and John S. Collins, of
| their signatures. So here was skillful
forgery of four signatures, If forgery it
was. The names were written so nicely
that every one Judging from their appear
ance simply and in comparison with gen.
uine signatures of the same parties, was
obliged to assert their commences. And
as " Ed " Leonard was not known to have
had any special aptitude in that direction,
it was fair presumption that he had not
| lNnrInrnNnI Gnnh ,nfn nC
forgery. Messrs. Carlos Carpenter, Geo.
w. Tilden, f. E. French, Luclus w. Scott
Horace Fiiield, Ira P. Harrington and II
number of others of Mr.. AverIll's old &C.
quaintances and fellow townsmen were
called TO identify his handwriting. They
all testified with one accord that the sig
nature on the note was genuine. AS ex.
perts, Hon. Whitman G. Ferrin and Mr.
+. ID. Blackwell, cashier of the Barre
Bank, were put upon the stand. They
also confirmed the opinion of the other
witnesses. To test their capacity for judy
ing accurately, they were given list of
eight signatures, some genuine, others
spurious, Of Mr.. Averill, and asked to Sc
lect the genuine ones. The signal failures
that nearly all the witnesses made once
more demonstrated the unreiableness of
expert testimony. The witnesses all said
what any one neither expert or familiar
with the hand writing of Mr.. Averill, that
the signature looked like his. 1t wouldn t
have been very skilful forgery if it had
not. The jury took the case at 5: 30 p. NJ.
on Saturday, and being unable to agree,
were discharged at 0 p. NJ. We under
stand that they stood seven to five for
plaintiff. 1t is not to be wondered ut that
they disagreed Messrs. John w. Rowell
of Chelsea and Heath & Carleton fof
plaintiff; Messrs, w. A. e. o. B. Boyce
for defendant.