ÏEW P. îiAtJGHLIN. 43 �of theîr existence and terms — ^in other words, to avoid the uerious dangers incident to paroi testimony, �One who seeks to avoid the language in which such an �instrument is drawn, as by proving the assent of parties to a �change, or otherwise, must be held to full and satisfaetory �proof of the fact. Such proof can readily be secured by hav- �ing the assent noted or distinctly expressed in the presence �of witnesses who wiU remember it. Here there is no such �evidence. The testimony of Messrs. Hager and Stetson �amounts to nothing. Neither bas any recollection on the �Bubject. The etalement of the first, that he "must have re- �ceived the approval of Mr. Stetson to the alteration," is objeo- �tionable on the double ground that Mr. Stetson had no power �to assent for the respondents, and that it is an inference sim- �ply which the witness cannot draw. The statement of Mr, �Stetson that "it is a universal custom to do that thing — that �is, to obtain the assent of the broker to an alteration in a �charter-party — is of no consequence, because such assent, in �the absence of anthority to give it, as here, would be value- �less ; and bis f urther statement that if Mr. Hager asked "my �assent I should bave felt that I would have committed a for* �gery if I had not consulted the captain or managing owner, �but I do not remember the circumstancea," is of aa little �consequence. It does not reach the dignity of evidence. In- �ference is buUt upon inference. Mr. Hager having inferred �that he "must have obtained Mr. Stetson's assent," the latter �infers (granted Mr. Hager did) that he obtained the cap- �tain's or owners'. Where inferehces are admissible they are �to be dra-wn by the court. Here we see no foundation for any �that can aid the libellant. If written instruments might be �avoided, or their terms changed, upon such testimony as tha �libellant here invokes, they would cease to be of value. �That the alteration materially changes the contract aa originally written is not open to controversy. The letters of Eobinson & Co. and Pew & Son show how important to tha latter the change was considered. It is urged, however, that the alteration was not made until after the instrument had been fuUy executed, and that being then made without au- ����
