
    *The Commissioners of the Poor for Horry District, v. Henry Hanion.
    It is sufficient proof of a defendant’s signature, if a witness swears that he has seen defendant write and that he believes it to he his handwriting.
    Under the plea of non est factum, a defendant cannot show that the hond was not taken according to an Act of the Legislature ; hut must plead it specially, 
    
    Interlining a bond after its execution will render it void: whether interlineations were made before or after execution, is a question for the jury.
    Debt on bond ; plea, non esl factum; tried at Georgetown, Fall Term, 1817, before MLr. Justice Oolcock.
    The bond was given to the Commissioners of the Poor; the penal sum was sixty pounds. The condition was, that the obligor should pay the plaintiffs five pounds, or should prevent the child from becoming burdensome to the parish. There was no security to the bond ; no other than the defendant signed it. There was an interlineation near the end of the condition.
    It was contended by defendant, that the bond was void; First, on account of the interlineations. Second, because -there was no security to the bond, which there should have been, as it was a bond taken under the Act of Assembly.
    The defendant also offered to show that the child had ■ never become a burden to the parish, but this was refused by the Court.
    The jury were instructed, that if the interlineations had been made after the bond was executed, that it was void, and that it was their province to determine on the fact; and that under the plea of non eat factum, which only denied that the bond was that of the defendant, it could not appear whether the bond was voluntary, or given under the 'Act..
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and a motion was now made for a new trial, on three grounds :
    I* That the evidence adduced to prove the handwriting of the defendant, was not such as the law required.
    *2. That the directions of the particular Act of Assembly, which authorizes the Commissioners of the Poor to take bonds in instances of bastardy, ought to be strictly pursued; and that this bond was vitiated and void, in consequence of its departure therefrom.
    3. That the bond above mentioned was vitiated by material alterations and interlineations, apparent on its face, they not being properly noticed.
    
      
       2 N. & McC. 426.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

The first ground, which is a new one, is also a mistaken one. The witness called a Mr. Marvin, a gentleman of information and a merchant, who said he had seen the defendant write, and believed the signature to be his handwriting, which is sufficient proof. Philips on Evidence, p. 364.

On the second ground, if the defendant had intended show that the bond was executed by him in conformity to the Act which provides for the maintenance of bastard children, he should have pleaded this specially, by which the plaintiffs would have been put on their guard, and may, under the special plea, have shown, that it was a voluntary deed given to the plaintiffs, as trustees for the child alluded to in the condition, or other matter in support of the bond. Or, if there was sufficient, apparent on the record, to show that the bond was given under the bastard Act, he may have demurred. Any thing, which shows, that the bond was void at the common law, ah initio may be given in evidence under this plea, “ as that it was obtained by fraud, given by one not competent to contract, or that it became void after it was made, and before the commencement of the action, by erasure, alteration, addition, &e. But matter which shows, that the deed was merely voidable on account of infancy or duress, or that it was void by Act of Parliament in respect of usury, gaming, and so forth, or that a bail bond was not made according to the Act of the 23 Henry 6, c. 9, must in general be pleaded. In *the case 0^' a kail bond, indeed, if it appear upon the declaration, that the bond has been contrary to the provisions of the statute, the defendant may demur, or he niay move in arrest of judgment after verdict on a plea of non esi factum1 Chitty, 419, 480.

King, for the motion. Hayne, Attorney-General, contra.

On the third ground the defendant cannot prevail, because it involves the consideration of facts submitted to the jury, and by them determined in favor of the plaintiffs.

The motion for a new trial is therefore refused.

All the judges concurred. 
      
       P. L. Appendix 8, not in statute at large. See ante, 333.
     