Hardesty v. Harris

Cochran, J., delivered tlie opinion of this Court: This suit was brought by the appellant, for the purpose of recovering the amount of a promissory note, of which the appellee was the maker. The defence was, that the note upon which the suit was brought, was made for accommodation, and without consideration. At the trial the appellee executed a release to David Moore, who obtained the note, and then proved by him that the note was made and delivered to the witness without any consideration and for his accommodation, and that the witness in like manner delivered it to the appellant for the purpose of obtaining the proceeds through a discount to be procured by him for their co-partnership use, in the purchase of other paper. Then, for the purpose of further showing the co-partnership between the appellant and the witness, and to corroborate his testimony in reference thereto, the appellee offered in evidence certain letters from the appellant to the witness, the admission of which, after objection made by the appellant, constitutes his 1st exception.

The grounds upon which the admission of these letters was objected to, were that certain notes to which the letters referred were not produced, and that the letters did pot tend to prove a partnership between the witness, Moore, and the appellant. In considering this evidence, it is proper to observe that the appellee had proved by his witness a co-partnership between the witness and the appellant, that the note in question had been placed in the appellant’s hands as a borrowed note, to be used for their joint benefit, and that the letters were offered in. connection with that evidence for the purpose of more fully establishing the fact of the partnership. The letters were not offered to show the particular character of the transactions to which they refer, but to prove the relations between the appellant and the witness, and that they had a joint interest in a course of dealing with other parties consonant with that alleged ³²² by the witness in his testimony. In that view, the notes mentioned in the letters were neither material nor pertinent to the issue, nor was