King

This is the second appeal in the above-entitled action. The decision on the first appeal ( 53 Cal. App. 157 [ 199 Pac. 890 ]), sets forth all of the facts and there is no necessity for repeating the facts in detail.

The plaintiff sought to recover on a cheek which had certain alterations on the face thereof. On the first appeal it was held that the plaintiff must first assume the burden of accounting for the alterations. When the case was on trial the second time each party offered the testimony of certain witnesses as experts on the subject of the alterations. Thereafter the court instructed the jury and gave to the jury a general verdict and a number of special verdicts. The jury returned a general verdict and special verdicts in favor of the defendant and a judgment was entered in accordance therewith. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The appellant contends that she made out a complete case and that the respondent did not make out any defense and therefore the verdict was contrary to the evidence. In making this contention the appellant cites and relies upon Thompson v. Thompson, 140 Cal. 545 [ 74 Pac. 21 ]. That case is not in point because the writing involved…