
    *John Herig v. R. Nougaret.
    Suit by N. v. H. on undertaking on docket of P., a justice of tbe peace, for stay of execution. N., to maintain tbe issue on bis part, introduced tbe record of tbe judgment, and H. admitted tbat at tbe time be signed, bis name on tbe docket, justice P. added to tbe name “for stay.” H. offered to prove that be signed bis name in blank on the docket, and tbat no undertaking was then written out; and that after P.'s term of office had expired, and his official records had been transferred to his successor, ex-justice P., without the consent of H., wrote on the docket, above H.’s blank signature, the undertaking sued on. Held, that it was not error in the court below to reject this testimony offered by H.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the district court of Cuyahoga county.
    In December, 1855, Nougaret recovered a judgment against Halenz, before Philpot, a justice of the peace. Upon the record of this judgment Nougaret brought suit before another justice against Herig, as bail for stay of execution, and judgment was rendered •against Herig, and he appealed.
    In the common pleas, the case was submitted to court for trial, .and judgment was rendered against Herig, who took a bill of exceptions, from which it appears that Nougaret, to sustain the issue ■on his part, gave in evidence the record of the case of Nougaret v. .Halenz, before Justice Philpot.. This record contains an undertaking in the usual form for the stay of execution, signed “ John Herig, for •stay,” and it being admitted by Herig that Justice Philpot appended the words “for stay” to the name of said Herig, at the time he •wrote it on the record, Nougaret rested his case.
    Herig then, to maintain the issue on his part, offered to prove that when he wrote his name on the record he wrote it in blank, no undertaking having then been written or entered on said record. ‘That long after said Philpot’s term of office had expired, and his •official records had been transferred to the custody of his successor,' Justice Tail, who had entered upon his official duties, *the said Philpot intermeddled with the records of said case of Nougaret v. Halenz, and, without the consent of the defendant Herig, wrote •therein over the name of said Herig, where he had signed it in blank, the undertaking therein contained, and upon which the •iiction against him was founded.
    
      Nougaret objected to the admission of this testimony, and the court sustained the objection, and ruled it out; and Herig excepted, •and prosecuted a petition in error in the district court to reverse the rulings and judgment of the common pleas; but the district court .affirmed the same.
    To reverse this affirmance a motion is made by Herig for leave to file a petition in error in the Supreme Court.
    
      John M. Eeisley, for the motion.
    
      William Slade, Jun., contra.
   By the Court.

Motion overruled.  