That a fraudulent mutilation lias been made of this bond is manifest from an inspection of it; for. parts of the letters which form the word “ teste” are still remaining : whence the Jury probably concluded, that the witness’s name had been taken off’ for the purpose of suppressing evidence of the consideration. If the witness’s name were taken away, it clearly destroyed the deed, by whomsoever done ; since it was altering it in a material part. But if no witness’s name were there, and only the word “ teste” has been cut off, (a supposition difficult to make,) still, if done by the obligee, it equally avoids the deed $ and that question of fact was left to the Jury. The only doubt is, whether the word “ teste” forms a part of the deed. I think the rule, if stated in precise terms, is, that any alteration in the writing which the parties make to evidence their agreement, if made by the party claiming benefit under it, avoids it; whether the alteration be made in an obligatory or useless part — and more especially if done, as in this case, with a fraudulent design. If the party to whom a bond be given, alter it in an immaterial part, .it is conceded, on all hands, thqt it will avoid it. The reason of the rule is equally applicable to an alteration in an useless part; and in odium spoliatoris ought alike to avoid it. It would be dangerous to countenance the least relaxation of a rule which guards so effectually the purity of written documents, upon which the most cherished interests of men depend — nor do I think that the Plaintiff should escape merely with the loss of the debt, if the name of the subscribing witness were cut off with a fraudulent intent. ■ The person doing the act and he who offers the paper in evidence with a knowledge of its having been done, are guilty of a serious offence. The judgment must be affirmed.
It is very probable, from the whole complexion of this case, that the finding of the Jury is *225sight — but a new trial is moved for because the Judge received improper evidence, and because be misdirected the'’ Jury. As to the first, I agree perfectly with the Judge, that the testimony was proper. But I do not altogether agree with him, as to what was said relative to the alteration of the note or the paper on which the note was written. I admit, that if the bond was altered by the obligee in either a material or immaterial part, it thereby became void. But if a word or words bo written on the same paper on which the obligation is written, and they be neither a material nor.immaterial part thereof ; if, in fact, they do not belong to it, and are no part of it, and those words be cut off, the obligation will not thereby be avoided. So, in the present case, admitting that the word “ teste” (and no other part of the obligation) had been cut off, I think that circumstance would not avoid it, let the intention be what it might. But a bad intent ought not to be inferred from an innocent or useless act. If the charge had been to the Jury, that, if they believed that not only the word “ teste,” but also the name of a witness had been separated from the paper, they should find for the Defendant on the plea of non est factum, there could be no objection to ft; for although the attestation of a deed is said not to be of its essence, yet it is a mode of proof agreed upon by the parties, and is so far a part of it. For these reasons, it seems to me, there ought to be a new trial.' .