
    Wagner v. Lenarth, Appellant.
    
      Judgments — Opening judgments — -Forgery—Evidence — Insufficiency — Judicial discretion.
    
    A confessed judgment wiH not be opened to let in the defense of forgery, if the "evidence is such that a verdict for defendant could not be sustained by the court in the proper exercise of judicial discretion.
    Argued March 6, 1923.
    Appeal, No. 3, March T., 1923, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1921, No. 110, dismissing rule to open judgment in the case of Lee J. Wagner v. Martin Lenarth.
    March 15, 1923:
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule to open judgment. Before Newcomb, J.
    The court discharged the rule in the following opinion:
    Judgment d. s. b. ostensibly by confession in defendant’s bond. He denies the genuineness of the signature and moves to have the judgment opened to let in the plea of forgery.
    But the trouble is with the proof. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, so far outweigh his uncorroborated denial that on the present showing a verdict in his favor could not be permitted to stand; and that is believed to be decisive against the relief asked for.
    The motion is accordingly denied and the rule to show cause discharged.
    Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      Charles H. Soper, for appellant.
    
      J. FI. Price, of S. B., C. B. and J. H. Price, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The order appealed from is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.  