
    Hugh McCulloch et al., Respondents, v. George Hoffman, Appellant.
    The question, as to the sufficiency of proof of loss, and of unavailing search to authorize the admission of parol evidence of the contents of a written instrument is very much in the discretion of the trial court, and the case must he quite without.proof to authorize an appellate court to find error.
    (Argued April 12, 1878;
    decided April 23, 1878.)
    
      This action was brought to recover certain advances alleged to have been made by plaintiffs, at their banking-house in London, to a son of defendant, at his request.
    The testimony of one of the plaintiffs was taken by commission. He testified as to the contents of a letter alleged to have been written by defendant to the London house. This was objected to generally. The objection was confined to that part of the answer in which the witness spoke of the contents of the letter. The point was made upon appeal that it did not appear that the letter referred to was a genuine letter from defendant. Held, that the point was not tenable, as the objection did not appear to be to the introduction of a letter not proved to be defendant’s, but merely to the giving oral evidence of its contents.
    The witness testified that the letter was sent to one French, at New York, who testified that he delivered all the papers he received to plaintiffs’ counsel; the latter testified that it was not now in his possession. Both of the witnesses last named testified that unsuccessful search had been made for the letter after it was discovered that it was missing. Held, that this evidence was sufficient to authorize the trial court to admit parol evidence of the contents of the letter, the court stating the rule as above.
    Other questions were presented which were disposed of on the facts of the case.
    
      Samuel H. Randall tor appellant.
    
      Thos. P. Hubbard for respondents.
   Folger, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.  