The daily gazette., 1881-12-17
From Y.ss.rs.y,s Las. Ea,s,s ).
COUnr PRoCKEDInes.
Al Verdict N Jackson W. Dsla
pInins-The aeGrffs


esse Again UnasF way.
On the reassrnbllpg u Couit, this
morning, the charge Of the Coa,t ih he
case Of Jackson W. Dslaplains va de.
Iivsred, and at 10 80 o'clock the Jury
retired. Al II o'clock they returned with
q verdict for jackson, for six cent? and
costs, this rel, asine him from the tlaisi
for unpaid rent, under which be wAs dis
trained and subs quently repisvined.
A jury WAS NJ H drawn 70 try the case
Of George II. Hollis 70. Isaac W. Van
deRrift-ano her Instance Of pr0trActed
litigation. This 10 suit on two pro
missory notes, for 81 900 each, dated,
Jan. l, 1877, one at twelve months and
the other ~ fourteen, made ia, st.a to
George II. hollis or order, signed py j.
A., Isaac w. and l.. @. Vsudrgrift, and
Witnessed by Frank Vandeeriit. The
vote payable at twelve mouths y en-
dorsed BY two credits-one for Sl5l and
the other for e30U, leaving the amount
due TO date, with lnleresi, x1911 66t The
defense 10 that The notes wsie altered by
having or Co." erased after the drsl
signature, aud tho words "or order" In.
serted after the name OF George n.
Hollis, after they signed aud deiiv efeo,
and also the act Of limitation-Anthopy
Higgins aud Jacob Moore, K o., tor tho
plaintiff, Cbss. B. Lore and Geo. II.
Bates, Eso., tor the defendant.
This 10 the third trial OF the case, The
tirsf, at the May term, 1879, resulted In
disagreement Of the Jury, and lhe sec
ond, al the November term, some yea, /,
In verdict for the plaintiff This jadge
meDt was referred by the Coun 81 Errors
and Appeals, aud hence the necu ssity
OF new trial.
Mr.. Higgins opened BY making n
statement Of tho case to the jury, and
offered the notes In evidence.
Mr.. Bates objected to their admis-
sion, claiming that they had On their
face evidence Of alteration, which
alteration must be first explained by
the plaintiff. He claimed that the
alterations were manifest, the erasure
being plain, and the words ''or or,ler"
being written In q different hand and
with different ink from the body Of
the notes. lie submitted the notes to
the inspection OF the Court.
Mr.. Moore claimed that this ques
tion was raised at tho previous tria
and overtuled by the Court. II,
argued that under the statute, the de-
fendant, In order to object to the ad'
mission OF the notes, should have nlec
an affidavit denying his signature. o.
the time the plaintiff filod his decd IRA
tioD.
The Court decided that tho note
were admissible, the alleged aItera.
tions being questions Of fact for th,
jury to determine.
Tho defense noted an exception I,
tho ruling.
With the admission Of tho not. - th
case ON the part Of the plaintiff wa
closed.
| Mr.. Bates. for the defense, move,
for q non-suit on tho same groun,
that they objected TO the admission o
the notes a. evidence. After discus
sion, the motion was withdrawn, will
the understanding that tho Cour
1ouli be asked 10 charge particular
upon this point when the case went 4
the jury.
| Mr.. Lore then opened for the de
Tense. He said the notes were kivel
by John A. Vandegrift g. O., hi
partner being J. A. Marshall, witt
Isaac w. and L. {. vandegrii. ss so
curities, and that they were made no
nego liable. Afterwards they wsr
altered so ~ to be payable "to order
and the "& Co." after j. A. Vande
grifps name erased-the alteration
being made without The pla'utiff'
knowledge or consent. He clalme
that Hollis, the plaintiff, had nelthe
legal or equitable right TO recover o.
bis suit, having not only altered th
notes, but deprived John A. Vande
grit Of the means Of paying tho notes
and crushed him, financially out Q
exis'enc".
Frank Vandegrift, son Of Z. @
Vandegrift, and tho lad who witne sse
the notes, testified that they wer
originally signed j. A. vandegrift
Co., and that they did not contain tb
words "or order" at the time he wit
messed them.
Tho plaintiff objected to any evi
denos in contradiction Of the signatur
ss it now stands.
| AAS So1ft bhbtotu4u tuo
and the defense noted another excep
tion.
Mr.. Moore then stated that he an,
his colleague were anxious that tn
case should be decided by this Jury
and would therefore withdraw thei
objection aud allow the evidence II
regard to the erasure to 20 be for
the jury.
The witness testified that the erasur
marks on the notes we're at the plac
where the chara cters - Co." otiRi
nally followed the signature Of JohI
A. Vandegrift.
Mr.. Moore rigidly cross examine,
the witness up to the noon adjourn.
ment.
During the session q number O
prisoners indicted for minor politica
onenses we're brovght into Court, ar
faigned, pleaded mot guilty." anc
were remanded for trial.
Rugby Menthly.
4