
    BLANCHARD vs. MAURIN.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    Where the note sued on and annexed to the petition, is described as bearing date in December, and the one offered in evidence, according to the report of experts, shows the Roman numeral X, was used instead of the word December: Held, to be properly admitted in evidence of the plaintiff’s demand, notwithstanding the objection of the defendant on the ground of variance.
    This is an action on a promissory note. The petition described the note to be for the sum of six hundred and fifty-two dollars, bearing ten per cent, interest from the 5th of December, 1825, as will appear by the defendant’s note of that date, &c.; and he annexed said note for reference. He prays judgment thereon.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial.
    On the trial the plaintiff offered the note sued on, in evidence. The defendant objected, on the ground that there was a material variance between this note and the one declared on in the petition; the note now offered being dated in November, 1821, or at least, not dated on the 5th December, 1825, and the court overruled the objection (after having appointed experts, who reported on the date of said note) and received it in evidence. The defendant took his bill of exceptions.
    Judgment was rendered for the amount of the note, and interest; from which the defendant appealed.
    The original note was sent up with the appeal, for the inspection of the court.
    
      Nicholls, for plaintiff.
    1. The defendant not having formally denied his signature, the debt was proved, and the demand of plaintiff fully established.
    
      Where the note sued on and an** ncxed to the jietition,isdescrib~ ed as bearing £,-6 and one offered in <m-to^he Reportoí mcr,al. x> waa used instead of the word jOcecmpróperiy^ádmitofVeV^ntiff’s demand, notobjee^n'ol' the fheCngrouiid °of variance.
    2. The note is proved by experts, to be of the date alleged; there is no discrepancy or variance between it, as alleged and shown in evidence.
    
      Taylor, for the defendant.
   , Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was sued on his promissory note, bearing • interest at the conventional rate. He pleaded the general issue, and on judgment being rendered against him, he appealed.

On the trial of the cause in the District Court, the defendant objected to the introduction of the note sued on, in evidence, on the score of a variance between it and that described in the petition. The alleged variance is in regard to the date. The petition described the note as bearing date the 5th of December, 1825. The original note was annexed 7 ° to the petition, and comes tip with the record. The word t-v i , i *i i *11 , n i • December is not very legible. Experts were called on in the District Court, who reported the word December was intended. The note was received in evidence notwithstanding the objection of the defendant.

As the. case is presented, it appears to this court, the dis'trict-judge did not err in receiving the note in evidence. . , . ,' As the original was annexed to the petition, there could be no material variance or surprise. On inspection of the note, it appears the word December was written, as is not uncommon among the French inhabitants, with the Roman numeralX, instead of December. This is not plainly done, but it is the most correct^ way of deciphering the date. Experts have reported so.

It is, therefore, ordered; adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  