
    Hunter vs. Parsons.
    Peremptory challenges hiaygbe made at any time before the jury ia sworn.
    It is not error to permit an instrument to be read in evidence .before all the ovidence aa t# its execution has been submitted.
    A bmajide holder of negotiable paper, is not affected by acts or knowledge of his vendor. Any njaterial alteration of a note, after its execution vitiates it.
    ' No rule of law which makes one witness admissible in preference to another, to prove th» execution of an instrument, unless it has a subscribing witness.
    There is no law requiring the charge of the Court to be signed.
    Error to Livingston Circuit.
   Opinion by

Campbell, C. J.

Parsons sued Hunter upon a promissory note, the genuineness of which was disputed, it being claimed either that an original’and imperfect instrument had been altered, or that a false one entirelv|had been substituted.

On the opening of the trial below, plaintiff examined all the panel on their voir dire, and then for the first time challenged one of them peremptorily. It was claimed that he should have challenged him after his preliminray examination, and before he proceeded to question the rest.

Held, That the course taken was not error. There is no rule of practice forbidding the exercise of the right of peremptory challenge at any time before the jury is sworn. And unless a party has ascertained what jurors can he excluded for cause, and therefore need not he challenged peremptorily, he may lose the chief value of the privilege.

Proof was given by the plaintiff that, after his purchase of the note, and when it became due, defendant, on being requested to pay it, said it had been altered; that the words “ or bearer” had been put in, and the rate of interest changed; that he said four or five times he signed the note, and said it was his signature or a close imitation. Upon offering to read the noto in evidence, it was objected that the proof of the signature was not sufficient; but the court admitted it, and the plaintiff followed up the admission by further proof of its genuineness, which was controverted by proof introduced by defendant.

Held, that there was no error in allowing the note to be introduced. The whole matter was finally left to the jury.

Also that there was no pertinency in the inquiry how much the party of whom the plaintiff brought suit, paid for the note. If plaintiff himself was a bona fide purchaser before maturity, he cannot be affected by the acts or knowledge of his vendor.

The defendant had testified that he believed the note was signed by him, but that it was altered after he signed it. Some of the alleged alterations were printed words, standing in the note as produced. The printer in whose office the blank was printed proved by his testimony that it was originally printed as it then appeared. The testimony was clearly admissible, as tending to disprove any alteration after signature by the introduction of printed words not in the original blank.

Exception was taken to the charge, that the law will sustain the claim of an innocent or bona fide holder of a negotioable promissory note purchased before due, however viciously other parties may have acted, or whatever objections to the consideration may arise. The court instructed the jury thatany material alterations would vitiate it, and that the alterations relied upon were material. The charge related entirely to the question of original consideration and equities not affecting the execution or genuineness of the paper. It was in accordance with the settled law.

Exception was taken to the refusal of the court to charge that “ if the plaintiff has means of showing that the note was executed by the defendant, as now produced by the person to whom it was given, it is the plaintiff’s duty to produce him, or account for bis absence. When the execution is denied under oath, the presumption of law is, that the witness would not testify that the note was, when executed, as it now is.”

Held, That the denial under oath merely puts the plaintiff on proof of the execution. There is no rule of law which makes crae witness admissible in preference to another, except where there are subscribing witnesses.

It was also objected that the charge oí the Court was not signed. There is no law requiring it to be signed. Its genuine, ness will always be shown by the signature to the bill of exceptions and it can never be inquired into except when brought up on bill of exceptions.

Judgment affirmed with costs.  