
    Carpenter vers. Fairservice.
    1767.
    Whether a Promissory Note in which the Words “ in one Month ” appear to have been erased is admissible in Support of a Declaration on a Note payable on Demand, in Connexion with Evidence that the Alteration was made after Execution — quere.
    
    Prefent: All the 4 Judges.
    ASSUMPSIT upon a Note of Hand, payable upon Demand. These Words “in one-Month” were thus dashed out.
    
      Mr. Auchmuty
    
    objected, that the Note thus erased did not support the Declaration; therefore not Evidence to support it; and prayed Judgment whether it should go in.
    A Witness was sworn, who declared, he wrote the Note, and gave a Reason why those Words were inferted, and laid they had, lince the figning of Fairservice, been erased.
    
      Mr. S. Quincy,
    
    to what Mr. Auchmuty had objected, reply’d, that the Jury were Judges of this Matter, and would determine whether the Razure was before, or after figning.
    The Point was not much laboured on either Side: And Jusrtices Oliver & Lynde were of Opinion, that, as the Note did not support the Declaration, it should not go in as Evidence.
    The Chief Juftice Sf Justice Cushing
    
    were full for the Cafe, with all its Circumftances to be left to the Jury. And the Chief JuJlice laid, that lurely the Court could not determine the Weight of the Evidence of the Witnefs; but that the Jury are the foie Judges of the Credibility of this Witnefs, upon whofe Teilimony alone it refts^ whether this Razure was before or after íigning. ()
    
      
       Vid. Norwood vs. Faarservice, ante, p. 189.
    
    
      
      (1) The question as to the time when an alteration of a written instrument was made, is for the jury. 6 Gray, 442. 20 Vermont, 205. 11 New Hamplhire, 395.
    
   The Court

being divided, the Plaintiff discontin-ued, paying Costs.  