The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-20

ara alleges tH8t tLS Nv H. oc&u Fss&ss HsS
alleged check IL in evidence.
The court iustructs you that in this case the
burden Of proof In upon the defendant 70 show
that the said alleged check in controversy was
signed by the plaintiff. and that the money men
toned In II, to wit. the sum Of $780, was paid ~
the defsndant to the plaintiff OF to some one By
him authorized to receive II, and unless the de-
fendant hse established these facts BY strong
prepondersuce of the evidence In the case, then
you must find for the plaintiff
The eourt instruets you that, whereas in this
case the defense relied upon by the defendant -
the defence Of payment, the burden Of proving
the payment alleged. except 20 far ~ the same
Is admitted by the plaintiff, Is upon the defend
ant, and the defendant must prove the payment
alleged BY . preponderance Of the evidence IN
the case.
The court instructs you further that, when .
banking corporation pays check. IL pays II af
Its peril that Is to say, IL takes the risk OF the
check being genuine: and II It pays forged
check, II alone must bear the loss, II loss there
be. In other words, the banker and not the de-
positor assumes all risk regarding the genuine
ness Of the checks paid by the banker
The court tnstrucfs you that various witnesses
have testified In this case as experts upon hand
writing The court instruefs you that such wit
nesses have testified not from their actual knowi-
edge OF the fact a. to whether not the plaintiff
signed the check In controversy, but have testi-
fed as TO their opinion regarding the genuine
ness OF the alleged signature OF the plaintiff de-
rived from their knowledge OF the plaintiff sig
nature. or from comparison of the alleged sig-
nature OF the plaintiH which 10 denied BY him
with signatures OF the plaintiff which are adj
mittcd to be genuine. The court instruets you
that sneh testimony Ii competent, and that the
testimony OF the experts who have testified in
this case is to be considered by you like any
other testimony and il to be tried by the same
tests.
the testimony OF those persons who have been
examined as experts upon handwriting in this
ease, you should take into consideration the ex-
perience or want Of experience of each Of such
witnesses and his means OF knowledge upon
which he bases his opinion.
The court instructs you that in passing upon
the question as 10 whether or not the signature
to the $3.50 check in controversy Is the signature
OF the plaintiff, you are entitled to all the aid
and assistance which you can obtain by com
psrisou Of the signature to said check with such
signatures AZ are admitted to be the genuine
signatures OF the plaintiff and which are in evil
denee Al exhibits In this case.
The court instrucfs you that in deciding the
question as to whether or not the signature to
the $500 check which is in controversy is gcnu
inc, you are entitled to yourselves compare
that signature with the signatures OF the
plaintiff which are admitted TO be genuine,
which are in evidence az exhibits in this case
this case In issue OF fact, and that sole issue
Of fact 10 the one question, did George w. Crane
sign the check exhibit Q" or did he not. There
is no question in the case as TO whether any one
else signed IL for him. On the contrary. there IL
only the one issue for you TO determine, and
that is, did the plaintiff, George W. Crane, sign
the check "exhibit L." II you find that he did
you will render your verdict for the defendant
in this case. II you find that he did not you
will find verdict for the plaintiff in the sum OF
500 and interest at the rate OF ten per cent per
alnum from November 2s, 1890, to the date of
your verdict.
In determining this question you will remem-
Der that the burden ef proof is upon the defend
ant, and to entltle the defendant to q verdict in
its favor it must have established by prcpond-
ersnce of the evidence tho fact that Mr. Crane
did sign the check.
There has been evidence before you tending to
show certain relations Of intimacy between the
plaintiff aud the witness, Mrs. Dearborn, prior
TO tho alleged signing of the check. You are
instructed that the existence or non-existence
OF such intimacy Is not question in issue in
the case except in so far as it might to your
minds tends to render 1t probable or improbable
that Mr. Crane did sign the check.
But the decision OF the main issue in the case,
to Wit, the genuineness or non-genuineness OF
the check in dispute does not depend for its de-
cision necessarily upon your decision OF tho
question of intimacy, for Mr. Crane and the
woman might have been intimate. - she claims,
and he might have not have signed the check
The foregoing comparison will illustrate to
you how the question OF intimacy comes to be
in the case at all Its relevancy Is entirely col
lateral to the one main issue in the case, and
even if you believe that such intimacy existed
and yet believe that Mr.. Crane did not sign the
check. then your verdict should be for Mr.
Crane In other words, the moment that you
find as fact, II you do so find, that Mr.. Crane
did not sign the check, that moment this matter
of intimacy drops out of the case.
The following instructions, submitted
by the defendants attorneys, were then
given:
The court insfructs the jury that it is admitted
by the counsel Of the plaintiff and defendant in
this action that the only question in dispute Is
whether or not exhibit z" is signed by George
W. Crane; if the jury find from the evidence
that the plaintiff signed said check or exhibit q,
their verdict should be for the defendadt; Iii, on
the contrary, they should ind from the evidence
in the case that the plaintiff did not sign said
check, the verdict Of the jury should be for the
plaintiff.
The court instruets the jury that If the testi-
mony of witness appears fair, Is not unreason-
able, and is consistent with itself, and witness
has not In any manner been impeached, then
you have no right TO disregard the testimony of
such witness from mere caprice or without
cause. 1t is the duty of the jury to consider the
whole of the evidence, and to render a verdict
in accordance with the weight of all the evil
dence in the case.
The court instructs the jury that, while II is
the duty OF the jury to carefully scrutiniza and
dspassionateiy weigh the evidence of all the
witnesses in the case. still it is your sworn duty
to give proper credit TO the evidence in the case
with the presumption that each witness has in
tended to speak the truth, unless by their man.
ner of testifying on the witness stand, or by in
consistent statements sworn TO, or by testimony
inconsistent with other credible evidence in the
you are led to believe that the testimony OF
or unreliable. or unless you are led to believe,
from a manifestation of interest, bias or preju-
dice, that such witness or witnesses have been
inclined 70 exaggerate. color or suppress the
truth, or unless they have been impeached
The court instructs the jury that the credit of
q witness depends upon two things: his ability
TO know what occurred and his disposition for
telling the truth to the occurrence The
statement of witness having superior oppor-
tunities for knowing what took place and SUI
peror intelligence and memory, other things be-
ing equal, is entitled TO the greater weight be.
fore the jury.
One OF the tests for determining the credibilitv
of witness is his interest in the result of the
suit As general rule witness who is inter-
ested in the result of suit will not be- a hon
est, candid and fair in his testimony as one who
is not so interested, but the degree of credit to
be given 10 each and all OF the witnesses is q
question for the jury alone
The court instructs the jury that 1t is not nee:
essafy IN civil action as IL criminal action TO
prove fact beyond reasonable doubt: that in
this action no person is charged with a crime
ana IA hf.-. OFr- Ia a.