246 FKDERAIi BEFOBTeIU �[KTote 1^0.2.] �"$1,188.29. AuLLvn.LE, MissoTTKi, August 28, 1878. �"Twoyears after date I promise to pay, to the order of Craig Alexander eleven hundred and eighty-eight and twenty-nine one-hundredths dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from date at the rate of 8 per cent, par annum. Payable at Third National Bank of St. Louis. J. W. Hakeison. �[ludorsed;] " W. Q. Hareison. Craig Alexandeb. �[Note No. 8.] �"•$1,188.29. AiJLLViLLE, Missounr, August 28, 18V8. �" ihree years after date I promise to pay, to the order of Cralg Alexander, eleven hundred and eighty-eight and twenty-nine one-hundredths dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from date at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum. Payable at Third National Bank of St. Louis. J. W. Hakbi&on. �[Indorsed:] " W. Q. Hakrison. Craio Alexander. �"I hereby waive protest, demand, and notice of protest. �"Aiigmt 31, 1881. Craig Alexander." �For the purpose of this case it was then announced by counsel that the following tacts were to be considered as agreed upon by the parties hereto, and received by court and jury as proved herein. viz. : That the plaintiff bas had on depo.sit on general account, to credit of Craig Alexander, at varions times since October 4, 1878, more than the sum of $6,000 ; and that plaintiff bas had on deposit on general account, to credit of Craig Alexander, at various times since the institution of this suit, more than the sum of $6,000. �The plaintiff then rested. The defendant Harrison then requested the court to charge the jury as follows: "The court instructs the jury that on the pleadings and evidence herein the plaintiff is not entitled to recover." But the court refused so to charge, to which ruling said defendant then and there excepted. Defendant Harrison then offered to prove the following distinct facts, to-wit : �(1) That each and all of the notes sued on in these cases were originally exe- cuted between the maker and the, payee, Alexander, for the sole consideration of money won by said Alexander and lost by said defendant Harrison at a game and gambling device known popularly as " option deiils." �(2) Said defendant also offered to prove all and singular the facts set up as defences and recited in the answer of defendant Harrison ou flle in these causes. �But the court refused to admit such evidence, and rejected both said offers of proof as separately made, and to such ruling as to each of said offers the said defendant then and there duly excepted. The ��� �
