Case Name: Miller vs. Honey
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1817-06
Citations: 4 H. & J. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: Miller vs. Honey
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 4
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Miller vs. Honey
On a plea of non est factum, thesuh-smbmg* witness to the bill obligatory proved his own attestation, but had no recollection of having* seen the defendant sign, s -ai and deliver the bill; that from seeing* his hand-writing* as a witness to tb * vij i iid Í. icu bis ha, mg hteu will) Jhe plaintiff as a cleric at the time of its execution. and tram I> mr in the habit ot attesting snob imtrumem* for the plaintiff; he behevtd the defendant liad signed* sealed and delivered it —Held, that the testimony was competí nt and sufficient io prove the due execution of the biU
Appeal from Rent County Court Debt upon a bill obligatory for §337 80. The defendant, (now appellant,) pleaded non est factum specially — that he could not read writing, and that the consideration for which the bill was given, was stated to him to be §200, &c. Issue joined.
1. At the trial the plaintiff called the subscribing witness to the bill, who proved that the attestation was in his band writing, but that he had no recollection of having seen the defendant sign, seal and deliver the bill. That front seeing bis hand-writing, and from his having lived with the plaintiff, at the time of the execution of the bill, as a clerk, and from being in the habit of uitesfii’p-such instruments for the plaintiff', be believed the defendant had signed, sealed and delivered the bill. To this testimony the defendant objected; but the Court, \_Earle, Ch. J. and Purnell and Worrell, A. J ] determined that it was competent and proper, and permitted it tobe offered to the jm sy. The defendant excepted.
2. The defendant then prayed the court to diiect the jury, that the evidence offered was not sufficient to prove the due execution of the bill. The court refused to give the direction. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court,
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Jomv son, Martin, and Dorsey. J.
Chambers, for the Appellant,
cited Mbot vs. Plv.mbe, 1 Doug. 216. Call vs. Dunning, 4 East. 53. Barnes vs. Trortipowsky, 7 T R. 266, (note c.) Cooke vs. Woodrow, 5 ('ranch, 13. Peake's Evid. 96, 97, 98. Grfiller vs. Neale, Peake's A. P. 146; and Lovoe vs. Jottiffe, 1 W. Blk. Rep. 365.
J, E. Barroll, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT AFEIHMEB.