Jarvis v. Vanderford

• Decision Date: 26 March 1895
• Citation: 21 S.E. 302,116 N.C. 147
• Parties: JARVIS v. VANDERFORD et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

21 S.E. 302

116 N.C. 147

JARVIS v. VANDERFORD et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 26, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Pitt county; Bynum, Judge.

Action by T. J. Jarvis against J. H. Vanderford and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Plaintiff claims the land in suit under a mortgage given by W. H Burnett to one F. G. James, while defendants claim as heirs of Burnett's grantor.

A witness, not an expert, who never saw a certain person write and never corresponded with him, is not competent to testify as to that person's handwriting.

Jas. E Moore, for appellants.

Shepherd & Busbee, for appellee.

FURCHES J.

This is an action for the possession of land, in which there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed. The record presents but two exceptions: First, the exclusion of the evidence as to the handwriting of Alexander Evans second, the refusal to permit defendants to put in evidence a paper writing purporting to be a copy of the will of David Averett. We do not think either one of these exceptions can be sustained. It was not shown that Alexander Evans was clerk, or that Richard Evans was deputy clerk, of the court of pleas and quarter sessions in 1808. And, although there was evidence tending to show that Alexander Evans was clerk and Richard Evans was deputy clerk, in 1818, this did not create a presumption that they were such officers in 1808, 10 years before that time. Lawson, Pres. Ev. p. 190. But the paper produced purported to have been signed by "Richard Evans, assistant clerk," and not by Alexander Evans; and why it was that defendants wanted to offer evidence to prove the handwriting of Alexander Evans, we do not exactly see. But, be that as it may, we think the evidence offered was clearly incompetent. The witnesses offered had never seen Alexander Evans write, had never had any business correspondence with him, but "that he had seen some old papers at home, which were signed by Alexander Evans, clerk,--one an order of sale. I don't know that he was clerk, or that he signed them. Don't remember the dates. They are very old papers, and very much worn. I have seen some handwriting said to be Alexander Evans'. Don't know it myself." Defendants proposed to hand to the witness the paper writing "A," and ask him if the signature of Alexander Evans is in the same handwriting he has at home, and if it is the same he has seen, and...