_ NEAL v. rosrns. _ _ 39
assessor as in force. Mr. Crawford called immediately, on July 31st,
and said the mortgage had been paid several yearsbefore, and that he
had no knowledge of it being on the books of record, and then and there
canceled it. p
Mr. Stewart also testified that, a few days before the conveyances in
question were filed with him for record, John A. Crawford was in his
office, and spoke of the transfer of Foster’s property, and said he was
compelled to take it to protect himself; that he had indorsed largely for
Foster, and thought the notes were paid, but they had lately "turned
up " in Portland; and that the purchase notes for the mill had been sold
and indorsed away by him long before, and he thought they were paid,
but now they had "turned up" also, in Portland, unpaid.
I attach much importance to the testimony of this witness.. His, of-
Hcial position implies public confidence in his integrity, He speaks
cautiously, and a rigid croseexamination only served to confirm and-,
strengthen his opening statement. He cannot well be mistaken about
the interview with `William Crawford, nor the cause nor consequence of t
it. They affected his oiiicial duties, and the record of the cancellation
corresponds with his statement. The conversation with John A. Craw- `
ford was on a subject that was then attracting the attention of that public-,.
and was calculated to make an impression on him. Moreover,. the wit-,
ness, unlike some of those who testify to other alleged conversations- in
this case, has no grievance against Foster or the Crawfords, but isdisin-_.
terested, and apparently unprejudiced. - . ·,
True, it now appears that these mill notes were not indorsed to any
one; and if they had been, Crawford would have had no right to cancel.
the mortgage. But this false statement as to the cause and consideration
of the transfer of this block is at least a badge of fraud. Bump, Fraud.
Conv. 42. William Crawford’s action in canceling the mortgage, with
the declaration that it had been paid several years before, tells a different
story. r , ,»
John Conner, a banker of Albany, testines that between 1878 and
1880-he thinks in 187 9—Foster was owing him $20,000 of borrowed
money, when his cashier informed him that this Foster mortgage was on
record uncanceled, whereupon he spoke to Foster on the subject, who re-
plied "it had been paid and settled." _
V It may be admitted that this declaration of Foster’s is not competent
evidence in chief against William Crawford, to prove the payment of
these notes. But Foster is introduced as a witness_by Crawford to prove
that the notes were not paid at the time of the transfer, and the plaintiff ,
has a right to impeach him by evidence of contradictory statements made
out of court. Mr. Conner is a disinterested witness, and no one ques-
tions that Foster made this statement to him. ' The effect of his testi-
mony is to make;Foster’s now statement that the notes were unpaid of
no effect. This leaves the fact of their non-payment at _the time of the
transfer to rest on the testimony of the Crawfords, which is also materi-
ally aifected by their declarations and acts to the contrary out of court.
, In addition to the evidence of these disinterested witnesses, the unpaid