
    James Robertson & Co. vs. Robert S. Millar.
    Where there is conflicting testimony as to the genuineness of a signature, comparison of handwriting is admissible, as confirmatory evidence, to enable the jury to decide upon which of the witnesses they could most confide.
    A bundle of notes that is admitted to prove the genuineness of a signature, by comparison of handwriting, may be sent to the jury.
    Before his Honor, the Recorder, tried in the City Court, November Term, 1840.
    This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as indorser of a note, of which the following is a copy :
    
      *Charleston, %th March, 1840.
    280 dollars. Five days after date, I promise to pay Robert S. Millar or order, two hundred and eighty dollars, for value received.
    William Boyd.
    (Endorsed) Robert S. Millar.
    
    
      James Robertson & Co.
    
    Plea — The general issue. Defence — Forgery.
   The following is the evidence :

Richard W. Cogdell, sworn — Said he is teller of the Bank of the State ; has frequently seen defendant’s handwriting in the bank ; has seen notes on which Millar’s name was, where Boyd’s was not; thinks the name of Millar on this note is his handwriting ; would have had no hesitation in taking it as his ; he is, and was at the time of the protest of this note, notary of the bank; proves the protest; gave notice of non-payment to Millar, in person ; Millar said he was not prepared to pay it; said nothing of forgery; in presenting other notes on several other occasions, Millar referred to a memorandum.

Cross-examined — He said he never saw Millar write ; judges it is his handwriting from its similarity to other notes, which were not disputed, and which he has been in the habit of seeing in bank ; the protest was before Boyd’s death.

William B. Foster, sworn — Said he never saw defendant sign his name ; has seen his name often in bank ; should say this was his signature ; has seen his name for years past in bank; witness is discount clerk of Bank of the State.

A. C. Smith, sworn — Said he is clerk in the Union Bank; this indorsement of Millar bears the character of his handwriting; has seen notes of defendant which were admitted to he genuine ; has had such in his possession ; never saw this note before to-day.

Robert S Smith, sworn — Said he has seen defendant’s signature to notes which he knows to be genuine ; has seen him write, and should not hesitate to say that this endorsement is his handwriting ; would have taken it in business as genuine ; has received friendly notes from defendant.

* Robert Quash, sworn— Said he is clerk of plaintiffs ; recollects that plaintiff received notice of protest; he was sent to defendant to notify him ; defendant said, “ Boyd is sick, and if he would wait a few days there would be some freight from Columbia, and as soon as it came it should be arranged;” witness did not show the note to Millar.

Here closed the evidence of plaintiff.

DEFENCE.

'William Young, sworn — Said he is defendant’s only clerk; attends to all his business ; knows all the paper he has out; has charge of all his notes ; has seen Millar -write ; this endorsement is not his writing; never saw him write like this ; there are marks there which he never saw him make ; (these he pointed out to the jury;) witness kept a book of all notes of Boyd, on which Millar was endorser ; this note is not in that book.

A bundle of notes on which Millar was endorser, which had passed through bank, were here submitted to witness, to prove the signatures genuine, with a view, by comparison, to aid the testimony to disprove the handwriting of Millar. This was objected to by Mr. Yeadon. I overruled the objection, and the witness proved the signatures genuine. The witness then pointed out to the jury wherein the difference consisted.

He continued — The day that Boyd was taken sick, three notes on which Millar was endorser, became payable ; he went to Boyd’s office to ask if he was not going to send for renewals ; he met Vinro, who said that Boyd had gone home sick ; that his clerk had gone up to him, and he supposed he would attend to the renewals at night; there were protests for about $2000 more than was j ustified by his entries; this created suspicion ; went the week after and got statements from all the banks except the Bank of the State; there were several notes not on his list; he tried to get a statement from Boyd in 1839, but could not; several months before Boyd was taken sick, Millar stopped endorsing new business ; may be a year; though he continued to endorse all renewals that corresponded with the hook.

Cross-examined — He said he has been with the defendant since the fire of 183S ; was with his brother from 1832 ; began with his book of notes endorsed in January, 1839 ; about *sixty days from that time he found that he was $4000 on Boyd’s paper ; he then determined to stop; he knew what were renewals from the hook; never saw him endorse a new note for Boyd after sixty days from the 1st January, 1839 ; he said lie would not.

Cross-examined — Mr. Yeadon presented him a note to John M’Ncllage, of" Boyd, endorsed by Millar, dated 19th September, 1839, at four months, for $140, and asked him if the endorsement was genuine ; he said it was, and that it was a renewal, and referred to his book, and showed what note it was the renewal of; ho said Boyd was in the habit of sending up notes to be endorsed, marked “renewal,” and when he got them would tear that part off; Boyd did send up four or five months before his death a note to be endorsed to buy a boat, which Millar refused to endorse ; Boyd died 22d March, 1840.

Here closed the evidence of defendant.

EVIDENCE IN REPLY.

W. W. Kunhardt, sworn — Said that he held Boyd to bail for John M’Nellage, and that he released him on his giving him the note of 19th September, 1839, endorsed by Millar; this was the origin of that note.

Cross-examined — He said he got the note from Boyd ; had no communication with Millar.  