IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 4622, 21 December 1877, Page 1

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

At the Tiesident Magistrate's Court yesterday his Worship delivered judgment in the case of Goodlet v. Smith, heard last week, as follows : The plaintiff seekß to recover L 4 Is 4d, dus under a contract with the defendant for carpenter work done. The agreement is in writing. Several alter* ations are visible on the face - of the writing. The plaintiff admits that part of these alterations were made before he signed; but that those bearing on the question .whether the sum now sued for is due, were made by the defendant without the Plaintiff's sanction when the document « as in the defendant's possession. On the o< her hand, the defendant and the attesting witness have sworn that the whole of the alterations were made before the agreement was signed. If the latter statement be true, the plain* tiff has no case. The defendant's testimony being corroborated by a disinterested witness, the balance of evidence is in his favor. But the plaintiff has endeavored to support his case by inferential evidence, and has adduced two tradesmen whom he sent to value the coal-house and press in dispute. His mistake was in appointing valuators without any agreement with the defendant. It is not pretended that the defendant was in any wty a parly to the appointment. Anything wbiok pa-isrd boiwcen the defondant and the valuers is capable of explication according to his theory of mn-liability. Ha received them civilly, and at their request pointed out what they had come to see, bnt he did net acknowledge any liability. He had before this declined to pay the plaintiff. Nothing ho had said to the valuers or auy other witness can be construed into a positive admission of liability. The construction most favorable to the plaintiff can only lead to some suspicion and donbt. This would not warrant me in comhg to the conclusion that thedefendant'and Blair are both guilty of the serious crimes of per. jury and forgery. Further, the plaintiff's testimony is assailable on an important point. He stated that the word "two" was not inserted befere sigvature, whereas cu the former trial ha admitted the alteration had been made before he | signed the document. Upon the whole I am of I opinion the plaintiff has failed to establish his case. and he will bo nonsuited.