Appeal from the Sixth District.

Suit upon two promissory notes made by Beard to the order of Mesick, and by him indorsed in blank.

On the trial, plaintiffs, after introducing the notes, offered as a witness J. L. English, who stated on his voir dire that he acted for Mesick in making the waivers found on the notes; whereupon defendant objected to the witness, on the ground that he was interested to sustain his own acts, and to bind defendant. Overruled, defendant excepting. The witness then testified in substance that he was an attorney at law, and member of the firm of Edwards & English; that Mesick, who was a client of that firm, applied to him, English, to get some of his friends to discount the notes sued on, both of which were dated July 10th, 1856, and payable, the one on the first of September, and the other on the fifteenth of October following; that he accordingly went to the banking house of D. 0. Mills & Co., plaintiffs, and upon witness’ representation that Mesick was perfectly solvent, they agreed to discount the notes and directed witness to send Mesick to the bank; that in a day or two Mesick called at the bank, and the notes were taken by plaintiffs; that Mesick then left for the Atlantic States; that subsequently, when the first note fell due, witness was passing the bank and plaintiffs called him in, saying that Beard would not pay the note and they would have to protest it; that witness told them that if Mesick had to pay the note, he would not wish to incur the expense of a protest, and that he, witness, would assume the responsibility on behalf of Mesick to instruct plaintiffs not to protest the note, and that he would accept for him a waiver of notice of nonpayment; that he then stepped into plaintiffs’ banking house and indorsed on the note the following words: “ I hereby accept notice of nonpayment. Sept. 4th, 1856. Wm. S. Mesick, by his attorneys, Edwards & Englishthat nothing was said on the subject of presentation— protesting would include a demand; that when the second note fell due, substantially the same conversation took place between witness and plaintiffs, and that witness then indorsed on that note the following : “ Notice of nonpayment waived, October, 1856. Wm. S. Mesick, by his attorneys, Edwards & English; ” that two weeks after the second note became due, Mesick returned from the east, and on being told by witness of his acts relative to the protest, ratisfied them, saying that he, witness, had done right; that the money on the notes was for Mesick’s benefit; that he, witness, had no express authority at the time he made the waiver for Mesick to do so.

Defendant objected to so much of the above evidence as tends to show that “ there was a concurrent understanding that demand was also waived, on the ground that the writing must be taken to embody the whole transaction, and was not capable of such addition by parol,” etc. Overruled, defendant excepting. Judgment for plaintiffs against defendant Mesick. He appeals.