Foote

This action is on a promissory note, and was tried with a jury. Plaintiff, by his evidence, by the admissions of the answer, and by the presumptions of law which follow the possession of a promissory note bearing a general indorsement, established a satisfactory prima facie case. A motion that the court instruct the jury to render a verdict for defendant was made, and properly denied. The ruling was not excepted to. Defendant was then called to the witness-stand, and, after the court, for the benefit of his attorney, had made an elaborate and seemingly needful exposition of the elementary principles of law affecting negotiable instruments, this discussion followed: “Mr. Stephens: I propose to prove that the note was given to the Crocker-Woolworth Bank, and that they were a party to the fraud. The Court: In what respect was it a party? What did they do? Mr. Stephens: They took this note of Mr. Hayes from J. W. *977 Girvin & Co. The Court: Took it -when? Mr. Stephens: After the note was made. The Court: When? Mr. Stephens: I cannot tell you until I get the books of the bank. The Court: Before it was due, or after it was due? Mr. Stephens: After it was due.” Counsel for the defendant…