
    John G. Rockafellar vs. Isaac Rea.
    After a motion to dismiss an appeal on account of interlineations in the appeal bond, the appellant may be permitted tto prove by the person who drew the bond (if he is present in court) that the interlineations were made previous to the execution of the bond. •
    This was an application for a mandamus, to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hunterdon, to require them to restore an appeal which had been dismissed, and *came before this court upon the following state of the case, agreed on by the attorneys of the parties.
    
      “ This case being called in its turn. A. Miller, attorney of appellee, moved that the appeal be dismissed on account of defects in the appeal bond; whereupon the appellant called John Barton, esq., and offered to prove that he filled up, interlined, and perfected the appeal bond, with his own handwriting, prior to its execution, and that it is now in the same situation it was at the time of the execution and delivery. To which evidence the attorney of appellee objected, and the court sustained the objection, and thereupon dismissed the said appeal.”
    
      Hamilton
    
    moved a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Court of Common Pleas to restore the appeal; and cited 5 Halst. 288, Sutphin v. Tunison ; 6 ib. 187, Shinn v. White.
    
   By the Court.

Let the rule be allowed.  