
    Daniel Mansfield vs. Polly Corbin.
    The comments of a judge upon evidence are not matter of exception.
    Exceptions adjudged frivolous, and double costs allowed against the party ex* cepting.
    This was an action to recover the amount due on a promissory note and on an account annexed. The defendant filed in set-off an account larger in amount than the account annexed to the writ; and specified in defence to the note, that the signature was not genuine, but a forgery, that the note was without consideration, and that it had been paid. Evidence having been introduced on both sides, except as to the specification of payment, of which the plaintiff gave no evidence, the jury were charged and retired to consider of their verdict. After having been in consultation for some time, they came into court and inquired if they could find that a part of the note was due and not the whole. The presiding judge, in answer to this inquiry, said, (without any objection being interposed on the part of the plaintiff,) that he knew of no evidence in the case, which would show that the note was not binding in part, that would not show that it was wholly void. The jury then retired and brought in their verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.
    
      B. D. Hyde, for the plaintiff,
    said that the exception was founded in the principle, that the functions of the jury should not be encroached upon by the court.
    
      G. D. Bowman, for the defendant,
    was stopped by the court.
   By the court.

The exceptions must be overruled. The answer of the judge, to the inquiry of the jury, does nothing more than comment on the evidence, and this is no ground of exception.

Double costs for the defendant were moved for and allowed on a subsequent day.  