On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 7 N.J. Mis. R. 572.
For the appellant, Haines & Chanalis.
For the respondents, George A. Henderson.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WELLS, J. This was an action brought in the East Orange District Court on a promissory note made by the defendant Michael A. Lisena and two others.
The case was tried by the court with a jury, resulting in a directed verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $298.11.
On appeal this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court on the theory that a jury question was involved and from the judgment of reversal the present appeal is taken.
The plaintiff is a loan company, licensed under Pamph. L. 1914, p. 75, which authorizes the organization of loan companies charging three per cent. per month for loans not exceeding $300.
The state of the case as agreed upon by the parties shows that the only witness who testified in the case was the manager of the plaintiff, who testified that he had charge of the records of the company and that according to the plaintiff's records the amount of the note was $300 and that there had been paid on account $76.36, leaving a balance due of $223.64 principal, together with $74.47 interest, or a total of $298.11.
On cross-examination he admitted that he did not have charge of the records during the time this note was executed and the alleged payments were made, and further that his predecessor, the man who had charge of the records during this period, had been convicted of embezzlement of similar funds.
The original note was admitted in evidence over defendant's objection that the note had not been proved. The objection did not state in what respect there had been a failure in the proof and no exception was taken to the ruling of the court admitting the note in evidence.
The briefs of the attorneys of both plaintiff and defendant are based upon the fact that the note was in evidence, and we must assume in the absence of anything in the record or arguments of counsel to the contrary that the note was properly admitted in evidence by the court.
The defendant did not testify nor offer any evidence denying the validity of the note or disputing ...