Norwich bulletin., 1910-02-16
CLAIMS THAT NOTE
 HAS BEEN CHANGED.
Philip E. kendrick Admitted His Sig nature, But Says the Amount is Not the Same as When He Signed It. Suit of Lowe vs. Hendrick on Trial.

The superior court in this city on Tuesday was occupied all day with the trial of the case of Robert A. Lowe of Waterbury vs. Philip F. Hendrick of this city. In this suit it is the claim of the plaintiff that he endorsed a note of $I,500 for the defendant, which has never been paid. Both parties had bus mess transactions over New York real estate, Attorneys Perkins and Rog- CTS represent the plaintiff and Attor- ney Thayer the defendant.
 The plaintiff was the first witness called, and he said that he had resided in Waterbury A years and has been judge of probate for Is years there. He met MT. Hendrick three years ago in Brooklyn When he was handed a slip of paper with one corner torn there was objection from the defense, claim ing that it was mutilated piece of paper, but it was allowed to be intro dueed, Attorney Perkins promising to show how it was torn. The witness recognized 1t as a note which he en- dorsed for and gave to MT. Hendrick. After he had renewed it three times the witness declared it was about to be protested. whereupon MT. Hendrick visited him in Waterbury last July and stated that he could not meet 1t then, but would be able to later. MT. Lowe gave MT. Hendrick a check for $1,500 in favor of James Staples & Co, and told him to pay the note so that Mir. I.owe's credit would be protected
 When Mir Hendrick returned the note
 
 MT Hendrick saying it made no differ ence as he would pay the note. MT Lowe suggested that if anything hap pened to Mir Hendrick the witness would have trouble with the estate in getting his money. but Mir. Hendrick said his wife had money and would ad- just it. He said he would not ask to have any more notes endorsed The paid. He was briefly cross- examined by Attorney Thayer, which closed the evidence for the plaintiff.
 For the defense MT. Hendrick was called and Attorney Perkins objected to the questioning of him by Attorney Thayer on the pleadings. Permission to amend the pleadings was allowed and two amendments were made
 MT. Hendr1ck testified that the S1,500 transaction was for the purpose of paying expenses in connection with the real estate deals in Brooklyn which MT. Lowe was interested in with him. He declared it was not for his benefit. He said Mr. Lowe and MT. Andrews held quarter interest each dn Brook lyn real estate. he holding half in tereSt- He declared that he spent about $1,200 for lawyer fees and searchings as well as interest, assess ments and taxes. Mir. Lowe never found fault with his work. He testi- fled that he signed the note to assist Mir. Lowe and when it was paid he tore off his signature, as it made no difference then.
 Upon being shown a note for s, 900, Mir. Hendrick testified that the sigma ture on it was his but he declared that the amount had been changed since he signed it. It was then $1,500. The note was admitted for the purpose of iden- tifcation, although it was objected to. MT. Lowe, the witness declared, was anxious that the note should be paid so that his credit would not be in- jured and MT. Andrews was likewise so. as the witness declared he had just Q n a n Y in Waterbury previous to July, 1909
 At 4.30 o'clock, while the defendant was still under cross examination, the court was adjourned until this morn ing at 10 o'clock. when the case will be resumed
 Stenographer w. B. Kirby of New Haven took the testimony in the case on Tuesday. Stenographer Smith was not feeling well. He will be at his desk today, however.
 On Tuesday Judge Greene overruled the demurrer in the case of Giles A. Beckwith vs. Rebecca Cowles ct al.