
    Matthews v. Edwin Bates & Company.
    1. The action being upon a promissory note, which was the only evidence introduced for the plaintiff, and there being no plea of non estfactum, there was no error in refusing to allow counsel for defendant to introduce evidence tending to show the note was in fact signed by another person, having the same name as the defendant.
    2. As to the other questions made by the motion for a new trial, this case is controlled by Matthews v. Bates, Kingsbery & Co., just decided.
    January 27, 1894.
    This suit was on a note like that involved in the preceding case,.and was tried in the same court and on the same day. The defendant pleaded not'indebted. It is assigned as error, that the court refused to allow him to prove by two witnesses that there was a J. II. Matthews who did live in Athens, Clarke county, and that defendant lived in Madison county the note sued on stating the residence of the maker, J. H. Matthews, as Athens, Ga., and the declaration alleging that J. H. Matthews of Madison county was indebted, etc. The other points made by the motion for new trial are the same as -in the preceding case.
   Judgment affirmed.  