
    LAMBETH & THOMPSON vs. DOSSON AND LOVELACE.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SEVENTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF CATAHOULA, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    Evidence should be admitted on the trial, of an exception that one of the defendants had not been served with a true and correct copy of the petition ; if it is refused, the ease will be remanded as to that defendant.
    •This is an action against the defendants as joint and several obligors in a promissory note; they with one S. W. M'CIure having all signed. The note is payable to the order of the plaintiffs at Harrisonburg, in the parish of Catahoula, where the defendants reside.
    The defendants failed to put in any' answer; but at the trial filed an exception by counsel, averring that they had not been legally cited or served with a true copy of the petition.
    They offered the clerk and sheriff to show that the paper purporting to be a copy, was the only copy of the petition served on Dosson, and that it was not a true copy. The testimony was refused and the defendants’ counsel excepted to the opinion of the court.
    This copy differs from the original petition in this: The latter reads “ that the said note has often been demanded of the said defendants [at Harrisonburg, and of the defendants at other places and times.”] The copy reads, “that said note has often been demanded of the said defendants [personally, and at other places and times.”]
    There was judgment against both defendants, and they appealed.
    The clerk certifies that the record contains all the documents on file and proceedings in the case, but omits that it contains all the evidence adduced.
    
      Copley and Downes, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Mayo, for the defendants.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is before us on a bill of exception, taken by the defendants to the refusal of the judge to receive the testimoay of the clerk and sheriff, to support the exception they had filed, alleging that one of them had not been served with a true and correct copy of the petition ; it being stated in the petition, that payment of the note sued on “ had been demanded of said defendants [at Harrisonburg, and of the defendants at other places and times ;”] while in the copy, it states only that the note had been demanded of the said defendants, [“ personally at other places and times.”] There was judgment against both defendants, and they appealed.

The District Court, in our opinion, erred in refusing to receive testimony of the fact on which the defendant bases his bill of exception.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court, as to the defendant Dosson, be annulled and reversed, and that the case be remanded fora new trial, with directions to admit the testimony mentioned in the bill of exceptions; the plaintiffs and appellees paying the costs of the appeal, and that as to the defendant Lovelace, the judgment be affirmed, with costs and ten per cent, damages.  