682 FEDERAL REPORTBE. �to show that the defendant's signature to the note had been proeured by fraud was irrelevant, under the issue of non est factum, and the case was affirmed on the ground that the defendant below was guilty of negligence in signing the note, and that the plaintiff below acquired the note after it became due, but from prier indorsees, who, for anything that appeared, to the eontrary, were bonajide holders. "But," say the court, "when either party demurs to the evidence his demurrer must be ruled upon according to the practice in this state, in view of ail the evidence which bas been given in the cause at the time the demurrer was filed." �Other Indiana cases were cited in support of the demurrer, but they need not be reviewed, as I think the law is correctly stated in Fowle v. Common Council of Alexandria. �In the case in hand, the plaintiff had no right to assume that she had sustained the affirmation of the issue and de- murrer to the defendant's evidence. �There was no joinder in the demurrer, which was neces- sary, and the proper admissions were not made in the de- murrer, or upon the record, upon which the court could found a judgment. A new trial is the only solution of the embar- rassment. ���United States v. Davis. �[District Court, D. Massachusetts. 1881.) �Indictment — Rbv. St. § 5023. �An indictment under section 5523 of the Revised Statutea, for a refusai to aaawer a lawful inquiry of the supervisor of elections, in the verification of a registration list, must aver that such inquiries were made of the defendant at the place assigned by him in such Ust as his place of residence. Bamb — Ameitdmbnt — Rbv. St. § 1025. �Such omission is matter of substance, and cannot be aided by amend- ment under section 1025 of the Revised Statutea. — [Ek> �E. W. Bmdett, for the United States. A. Lawrence, Jr., for defendant. ��� �
