
    Angel against Felton.
    Where $ nois is given to set-tie an account, not five" hf^evL count, nor can evirtSoe ofthe contents of the note, unless he clearly shows that the note has been lost or destroyed.
    The husband / cannot be sued 7 alone, for the) debt of his wife? ? contracted be< I fore their snarw riage. J
    
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiff below brought an action against the defendant below, before the justice, and demanded six dollars and sfeven cents, on account. It appeared that Betsey Thorpe, having given a note to the plaintiff for six dollars and seven cents, afterwards married the defendant, and that the present suit was brought for the same debt. The note was not offered in evidence, nor was any reason assigned for its not being produced, except the hearsay report of witnesses, that the note had been destroyed. Some evidence was also given of the note having been altered; but it was vague and inconclusive. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for six dollars and seven cents, on which judgment was rendered.
   Per Curiam.

The demand was founded on a note given by the wife of the defendant, when sole. The note was not produced, and there was some mention made of an alteration of it; but no account was given why it wag ' J not produced. There were some loose reports of its having been destroyed. These reports were not sufficient evidence of that fact, so as to warrant parol evidence of its contents; and if any inference was to be drawn from them, it was that the noté had been voluntarily discharged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not entitled to give the account in evidence for which the note had been taken ; nor was the defendant liable to be sued alone without his wife. This was so decided, on a motion in arrest of judgment, in the case of Hutchinson v. Hewson. (7 Term Rep. 348.)

The judgment below must be reversed. 
      
       See 1 Johns, Rep. 34. 37.
      
     